Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Southend, East, in the room of Sir Stephen James McAdden, Knight, CBE, deceased.—[Mr. Jopling.]

PETITION

DISABLED PERSONS (TELEPHONES)

Mr. John Evans: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition and associated signatures on behalf of residents in and around my constituency.
The petition reads:
To the Honourable The Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The

Humble Petition from we the undersigned sheweth:
That there is a great need for help with the rent and installation of the telephone for disabled and housebound people.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will pass legislation to ease the cost of the rental and installation of the telephone for disabled and housebound people.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
What is especially significant about this petition is that it was organised by a very remarkable, physically handicapped, housebound constituent of mine—a clergyman's widow who is 80 years of age, Mrs. Rhona Cooper of 59 Pasture Lane, Padgate, Warrington. Mrs. Cooper, operating from her armchair in her living room, collected no fewer than 7,008 signatures to a petition calling for financial assistance for the elderly, disabled and housebound with the installation and maintenance of a telephone.
She herself is living proof that a telephone is an essential link with the outside world and thousands of people without it suffer silence and loneliness. I trust that the Government will give serious consideration to this issue.

I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC (SEAT BELTS) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Clement Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your provisional selection of amendments you have seen fit not to call my new clause I. I should like to say, briefly, that I have about 400 miles of unfenced roads alongside canals and river banks in by constituency and there is genuine concern on the part of my constituents, the fire service and the ambulance service that an exemption of this kind should be requested. I am at a loss to know how I may try to introduce this matter when my new clause has not been selected. I would be grateful for your advice.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will not be able to do what he wishes because the new clause has not been selected. He will have to find some other way.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether we can have your assistance on a point that is of importance to this de-date. Will it be possible for us to vote separately on the amendments that you call that deal particularly with the exemptions? I have in mind the fact that when the exemptions were chosen during debate in Committee, you ruled that it should be open to the Committee to vote separately on each of the exemptions. There was great wisdom and common sense in that ruling, as one might expect, because some people who would want to see an exemption, say, for driving instructors or examiners would not necessarily want to see an exemption for people suffering from claustrophobia, or the disabled, or people making house-to-house calls, or to exclude people who are travelling merely 200 yards, about which an amendment has been tabled—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I can help him very quickly. Amendment No. 17 obviously decides amendment No 22, but on the others separate votes would be possible.

Sir Ronald Bell: Did you say amendment No. 17, Mr. Speaker? It does not seem to be a selected amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. It is being taken with amendment No. 15, and a Division on it is possible, but the principle would then be decided for amendment No. 22, also.

Mr. Lawrence: I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker.

New Clause 2

COMMENCEMENT OF REGULATIONS

A period of six months shall elapse between the approval by both Houses of Parliament of the regulations made under section 1 and their coming into effect'.—[Sir Ronald Bell.]

Brought up, and read the First Time.

Sir Ronald Bell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Perhaps at the outset it would be right to invite hon. Members' attention to the kind of regulations to which the new clause would apply. By clause 2 of the Bill it is provided that what I might call amending regulations will be made by the negative procedure, but that regulations introducing what I might describe as a new restriction, in respect, say, of a place in a vehicle that has not hitherto been subject to restriction, regulations of that innovative kind, shall be subject to the affirmative procedure and require a resolution of each House of Parliament. It is, of course, only to that category of regulation that the new clause would apply.
I think that there are three basic considerations that should underlie our examination of this proposal. First, there is the nature of the Bill itself—that is, the nature of the change in the law that it would introduce: and of course, it could introduce a change in the law only by the making of regulations of the kind that I have been describing. Secondly, there is the probable nature of the regulations in themselves. Thirdly, there are the general political considerations that are raised by the impact on the public of such regulations, with the consequent desirability of a pause before their enforcement through the criminal law. It


is, of course, the very purport of the new clause.
It has to be borne in mind at the outset that on consideration of a Bill on Report, whether from the Standing Committee or Committee of the whole House, new clauses are taken first. Therefore, one is moving a new clause to the Bill as it left the Standing Committee. It could, I suppose, be argued—I dare say that some hon. Members supporting the Bill will argue it—that if the amendments before us today are passed—that is, the amendments that have been selected by you, Mr. Speaker, either for debate or for vote—and the principal exemptions and exclusions were thus embodied in the Bill as distinct from being incorporated in regulations made under the Bill, the public would in all probability have more time for consideration and adaptation—and psychological adaptation—than the six months that I seek in my clause.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the hon. and learned Member aware of the fact that if this were agreed to it would mean that, as with the Sikhs, a public campaign would he built up and therefore, probably the whole of the Bill would be defeated and the public would then demand that the Bill be dropped. How would he deal with that?

Sir R. Bell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I assure him that I intend to deal with that matter, but in a later compartment of my speech. I am not sure whether he was present when I began my speech, but I said that there were three principal underlying considerations. I am now dealing with the first—that is, the nature of the change in the law that such regulations would make. I shall be dealing, secondly, with the inherent characteristics of the regulations and the requirements for delay. Lastly, embracing the point that the hon Member has raised, I shall be dealing with the impact on the public of such regulations and the desirability, therefore, of a pause for six months.

Mr. Freud: Further to that intervention, may I ask whether the hon. and learned Member agrees that if there were a public campaign that was all out to defeat the Bill, it might well be because the Bill deserved to be defeated? I have always felt that we are here to represent the public.

Sir R. Bell: The hon. Member will not expect me to disagree with that contention, but I am also rather aware of the rules of order under which we operate in this House; indeed, in a way, the hon. Gentleman has anticipated something that I was about to say, which is that at this stage of the Bill one must accept the principle of the Bill and set about improving it, even though, as we know—there is no point in pretending otherwise —some improvements are not as constructive as others. That may be what the hon. Member has in mind. However, I return to the line of argument that I was pursuing.
I was saying that if the amendments before us today were passed—inevitably, they come after the debate on the new clause—to that degree, I suppose, they would weaken the argument for my new clause. But I have to assume that the Bill is as it left the Standing Committee and that the amendments that we propose have not been made.
I suppose that one could go further and say that if regulations were not made at all the public would obviously have years in which to consider these matters, and there is no compulsion on the Minister to make any regulations. It is sometimes suggested that if the Minister did not make regulations it would in some way be a contemptuous brushing aside of Parliament's opinion. I cannot agree with that.
I see that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport is listening. Perhaps he will bear in mind that on the statute book there are plenty of Acts of Parliament empowering a Minister to make regulations or statutory orders, which regulations or orders have never been made. There is an empowering Act entitling the Secretary of State to fix the date of Easter, but that has never been done—or at least, not for about 80 years—and no one has ever suggested that that was a contempt of Parliament. It has just not been done. I am very glad that it has not been done. I rather like these movable feasts. Their agreeable unpredictability reminds me of private Members' days in this House.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that the Ministry


of Transport has introduced 2,000 regulations on vehicles and road transport and that about 90 per cent. of them are never enforced, because they cannot be enforced?

Sir R. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), but the matter comes up in the third part of my speech, when I shall deal with the difficulties that will arise from the enforcement of the regulations and the consequent argument for a six-month breathing space. I promise that I shall come to that matter and that the journey will not be too long.
Even if some of the amendments are passed, there remains the likelihood, not just the possibility, that they would not cover the whole ground and that, therefore, we would have a hybrid situation —that is a word I hardly dare to use in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). We would have a hybrid situation in which there would still he the necessity for a breathing space after approval of the regulations by both Houses of Parliament.
We have to bear in mind that a foolish Minister might make the regulations immediately after Royal Assent, but for the new clause. He could bring them into force at once. Statutory regulations come into force the moment that they are made, unless it is expressly provided to the contrary. It is so extreme a doctrine that they enter into force when the Minister makes them and signs them. If he leaves them in a drawer in his desk by mistake, and forgets to put them out, they are still in force and anyone who acts in contravention of them is guilty of a criminal offence. The present Minister would not do that. I am sure that he would not make the regulations immediately, but would have a period of consultation.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there have been cases where Ministers have said that they have made regulations when they have not? My hon. and learned Friend may remember Mr. Ernest Marples announcing that he had introduced a 50 m.p.h. speed limit regulation one Easter when he had not. The public

were conned into complying with a regulation that had not been made.

Sir R. Bell: Perhaps that was because the Government had forgotten to fix Easter. However, I am more concerned with the position where the Minister has made regulations and has not said so or, indeed, where he has said so but where the regulations come into force in accordance with the ordinary law of the land the moment that they are made. I realise that the present Minister would not do that, but the continuance of Ministers cannot be taken for granted. I do not wish to say that the Parliamentary Secretary is foolish. Any extended reference to that might be out of order, even upon Second Reading of a new clause when reference is permitted to matters that are not in the clause. On the provisions of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is thoroughly unsound, however wise he may be. I hope that today he is firmly paired with his Minister.
In drafting and amending legislation we must guard against the worst and we must not sun ourselves on the western slopes of a languid optimism. That is the reason for the new clause. Therefore, it is in a spirit of prudent duty and earnest endeavour that I turn, and invite the House to turn with me, to a consideration of the purpose of my new clause and the advantages that its adoption would confer upon the public, to whose interests we must ever be attentive. The first consideration is the nature of the Bill itself and the change in the law that it would introduce. There have been changes in the law of deep and wide import, which have produced surprisingly little emotional upheaval.
We might instance the introduction of decimal currency as one such change. That was a most important innovation for the public, but so far as I know it produced no martyrs. However many people liked or disliked it—they certainly indulged certain nostalgic regrets, and blamed it as an element of inflation—there was no emotional upheaval. On the other hand, there was a small provision of the law that required motor cyclists to wear crash helmets. We all know what an eruption that caused, and it still rambles on. Later on, I shall come to the implications in public relations of the enforcement of this law, and I shall take an illustration from that case.
All hon. Members should be in no doubt which of those two examples the basic proposal of the Bill more closely resembles. I believe that it is a wicked, evil and horrific Bill, which offends against the very ark of the covenant of a free society. I have always put aside as an irrelevance the Pharisaic claptrap about lives saved and injuries avoided. Were it all true and multiplied by 10 I would see it as no counterpoise to the objection of principle. That sentiment gives me a better judgment than that of the promoters of the Bill of how the public would feel if Parliament were so misguided as to pass the Bill and the Minister, under section 1, to make the sort of regulations that I envisage would be made.
Let there be no doubt that there would follow a period of acute public resentment. There would be much more resistance to the provisions of this Bill than there has been to the crash helmets Bill. Let there be no misunderstanding about my moving of the new clause. It does not mean in the slightest degree that I have come to terms with the purpose of the Bill or that I am formulating a compromise—not at all. The Bill is here, it has got thus far, and at this parliamentary stage one has to assume—perhaps "pretend" is the better word—that it may pass into law. On that grievous assumption, one must do what one can to diminish, appropriately enough by regulating, the harm that it may do.
I turn to the second of my two considerations—the inherent charcter of the reservations that might be made.
10 am
We have had this Bill more or less twice before—once as a Private Member's Bill and once as a Government Bill in 1976. Therefore we know quite well the sort of regulations that we are discussing. Last time round, the then Secretary of State for Transport circulated to those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill the probable exemptions that he would make by regulation—in effect, what regulations he would make to enforce the Bill. They were not merely complicated; in some degree, they were hilarious.
Of course, the regulations are unpredictable. The first time that the Bill was introduced the Minister said that the

exemptions and exclusions that he would propose by regulation would be very generous. That was the then right hon. Member for Dudley, East, Dr. Gilbert. Last time round we had a different Minister, who said that he would want practically no exclusions. This time round, again we have a sensible Minister. He would undoubtedly have reasonably sensible exclusions. But they are purely a matter of guesswork, and the House has to bear in mind that if we start with one lot of exclusions and exemptions another Minister may come along with more restrictive ideas.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Since the hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer perhaps he can help me. I am assuming that these exclusion clauses would be on a voluntary basis and that the person concerned would have the right to please himself whether to opt for an exclusion. I have in mind a big man like me. If there were exclusion for people who were excessively large, would it be in order for them to use their freedom of choice, even though exempted? In other words, could they either put on belts or take them off? If that is the case, does not it go against the whole principle of the Bill?

Sir R. Bell: I think that I can assure the hon. Gentleman. He could decide whether or not to avail himself of the exemption on the ground of his size. If the exemption did not exist, of course, there would be no exemption for the hon. Gentleman to avail himself of if he wanted to. There are really two stages of voluntarism. First, there has to be the exclusion before anyone can avail himself of it.
I was making the point that someone like the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers), who was the Secretary of State last time, could come along, in which case the House, having passed the Bill on one set of assumptions, might find a totally different animal in operation. Therefore, we have at this stage to guard against the worst and not to make any relaxed and cheerful assumptions about what the shape of the legislation will be if we do nothing about it on Report.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: There is the further point that while the Bill is being considered by the House as a Private Member's Bill the Whips are not on, but


when the Minister makes an order, that is an act by the Government and the Whips are on.

Sir R. Bell: Of course, and that is where the voluntary principle breaks down. What is more—I am sure this argument has been deployed in the past on this Bill, although not today—it is not possible to amend regulations made under an Act of Parliament. That is why we have to give attention to this question of the incorporation of exclusions in the Bill and not in the regulations. However, I must not anticipate a later debate when the House will be considering that.

Mr. Richard Body: My hon. and learned Friend has been very generous in giving way, and I appreciate his courtesy to the House. However, is he altogether right in saying that the Whips would necessarily be on if the Government introduced these regulations?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes, they would.

Mr. Body: I do not wish to join issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about this, but surely there have been occasions when the Government have introduced legislation and allowed a free vote. I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend, with his many years of experience in the House, can think of occasions when the Government have allowed a free vote in introducing their own legislation. If there is a precedent for that it might not be unreasonable for the present Government, if they are driven to introducing these regulations, to allow a free vote so that we can all express our views once more on this very important subject.

Sir R. Bell: The answer is that in 1976 a Bill similar to this was introduced by the last Labour Government, and they allowed their supporters a free vote on it, but that is quite a different matter from statutory regulations being introduced. I do not imagine that any Government would allow a free vote on those, because they are not amendable.
Governments are usually willing to strike bargains with the House if they run into serious difficulty. It makes sense then to yield to the will of the House. But the whole point about the statutory regulations that would be made under

clause 1 of the Bill and section 33A of the Road Traffic Act is that they would not be amendable. That is why the debates on the exemptions that will follow later today are so important.
I return to the relevant point, which is that this is a new clause coming at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill on Report and, therefore, I have to assume throughout my argument that the Bill is as it left the Standing Committee.
I do not know what will happen later today. It cannot, therefore, form more than a passing reference in my line of argument, so I return to the nature of the regulations that I must expect to be made.
On previous occasions, we were circularised—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Is not the question that we are discussing whether or not the period should be six months? Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will relate his argument to that.

Sir R. Bell: I am doing that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you will agree that I am limited to arguing not whether it should be five months or seven months but why there should be a period at all, and why the regulations should not come into force when they are made, as regulations normally do. It is the need for a pause about which I am arguing. As one has to in drafting a new clause such as this, I have proposed a period of six months. Some hon. Members may say that it is the wrong period. I am not arguing about the period, although six months is about the period that I want.
I wish to say why I believe this period to be necessary. It is necessary on this second round because the regulations that are most likely to be introduced will be highly complicated. We have already had one draft from a Department of State indicating what they are likely to be. We have also been circulated by the Government with a comparative schedule showing what the regulations are in those countries that already have this legislation. Therefore we know, first, because we know what the last Government intended, and, secondly, because we have been told what every other Government where this legislation exists have thought


fit to do. If one puts those together one surely cannot be far wrong in assessing what we are talking about as the necessary benefits of delay.
The regulations will require people to wear seat-belts unless they are exempted. Such exemptions are in operation in other countries and they appear in the Government's draft. They refer to physical size, and medical exemptions are sometimes specified and sometimes not. Other exemptions are made for children under 8 years of age and in some countries for people over 70, and there are exemptions by category of employment. The police are exempt, as are military and fire service personnel, and there is an extraordinary range of exemptions by character of journey.
One is exempt on a work journey with frequent stops. That reminds me of my speech today. I would be happy to enlighten any hon. Member who wishes to interrupt, since my speech is like a work journey with frequent stops. Such journeys, by one definition or another, are exempted in those countries that have seat belt legislation.
I imagine that such regulations have been made after a period of consultation, not with the public but with the RAC—which is totally opposed to the bill—and with the AA. There have been consultations with the police, and that is all. The police have the job of enforcing these regulations and they will need a period of reflection and mental adaptation. We know that the police are equally divided on this issue. The chief constable of Sussex has said that he does not like the beastly things and that they should not be compulsory. He is right, but we must not go into that. Apparently half the police forces are against having to perform this task and half accept it. Recently a relevant public opinion poll showed that the public is 3 to 2 against the Bill.

Mr. Roger Moate: Rubbish. Absolute rubbish.

Sir R. Bell: My hon. Friend says that that it is absolute rubbish. That is because they did not ask him, I suppose. We all have the vexatious experience of not being asked by the opinion polls, and we do not accept the verdict of any poll in which we do not figure as partici-

pants. However, the poll was conducted by a reputable organisation, and it shows that the public is 3 to 2 against the Bill.

Mr. Tom Benyon: I have here the results of a MORI poll which says that 50 per cent. of the public are in favour of the Bill, 46 per cent. are against it and 4 per cent. have no firm view. I suspect that statistics simply prove that we can make of them what we will.

Sir R. Bell: I agree. To some extent the answers given in opinion polls depend on the questions that are asked. That is always true. But if the poll that I quoted shows that the public are 3 to 2 against the Bill, and the one quoted by my hon. Friend for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) shows that the public are approximately equally divided—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must surely be straying from the principle, which is whether the new clause will apply in six months.

Sir R. Bell: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is absolutely on the main line of my argument. It is the public resentment of the Bill that requires the six-month interval during which the criminal law will not be enforced but during which the regulations will be known to the public. My point, which has been reinforced rather than diminished by the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham, is that there will be considerable public resistance to the enforcement of these measures. The idea that they should be made and come into force on the same day is absurd.

Mr. Lawrence: Is it not the case that the Department estimated that there would be a 20 per cent. rejection rate amongst the public? Twenty per cent. of 25 million drivers means that 5 million people will be opposed to the legislation. They would be so strongly opposed to it that they might very well be tempted not to allow the enforcement of the regulations.

Sir R. Bell: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
As a result of interruptions I have found myself sliding into the third part of my argument, which concerns the impact of these regulations on the public. I propounded that at the beginning of my speech as one of the main considerations to be taken into account in discussing the new clause. The impact will be great. We will have a lot—

Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) mentioned the MORI poll. I do not wish to mislead anyone or to cast aspersions, but I understand that investigations are proceeding into some of the polls that have been conducted by that organisation. If that is the case—I do not say that any conclusions have yet been reached—I wonder whether the poll mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend would indicate more precisely the strength of public opinion. Public opinion on this issue is very important.

Sir R. Bell: I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) about the importance of public opinion. However, I mentioned the public opinion poll only in passing, because a bald assertion by me that the public is deeply concerned about the Bill might not be accepted. It might be felt that though I was not exactly a tainted source I might be labelled an interested source. I quoted one poll, and another one was quoted back, as always happens.
The point is that the public are deeply concerned and even with the six-month delay—Make no mistake about it—there will be martyrs and there will be resistance. That resistance would be much less after a six-month gap than without such a period, though the resistance will be considerable in any case. We need only to consider the operation of the Road Traffic Act 1972 to realise that.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) has a constituent about whom we all know. He is a Mr. Hill, a respectable citizen who is in and out of prison—we shall have the same with the seat belts Bill—for refusing to pay fines as a result of not wearing a crash helmet. There are many decent, hard-working citizens who are opposed to the Bill in principle, as I am.
I would not have wasted my time over the years opposing the Bill if I did not feel strongly about it. One does not come here on Fridays for the sheer joy of it. One does not go through this business for nothing. There are many people in this country who feel strongly against this Bill. My post tells me that. I have had any number of letters from reasonable people—people who would be known to hon. Members—who are intensely indignant at the suggestion that they should be subected to this kind of legislation.
Do we want our people—not just a handful, as in the case of crash helmets —going to prison over and over again for refusal to pay fines under this legislation? Do we want to see them taken into the dock in handcuffs, unshaven and unnwashed, as was Mr. Hill, in my constituency, recently? Are we going to subject large numbers of respectable citizens to that kind of treatment in the interests of instant legislation?

Mr. Stanley Cohen: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves the issue of correspondence, I have to say that his experience is totally contrary to mine. The correspondence that I have received, without exception—I emphasise that—has been from people who suggested that I should stay here today to support the Bill to enforce the compulsory wearing of seat belts.

Sir R. Bell: I do not suggest that no people in the community welcome the Bill. They are entitled to feel strongly. But many people resent the Bill. An Act forbidding people to hit old ladies on the head causes no resentment. However, a Bill of this character, under which some people interfere with other people because they believe that it is for their own good, causes much resentment, and people object on principle.
I have to accept the Bill as it is at this stage. I can only suggest ways of diminishing the harm that it will do. A six-month stay after the regulations are made will be of benefit. The regulations will be published in the newspapers and discussed in public houses. People will be able to blow their tops and show their indignation. The six-month period will allow the police to warn instead of


prosecute. That will reduce high-principled resentment. That is my argument, and it should not be brushed aside.
I do not want the Bill to be passed. It is wrong in principle, and it represents a dangerous trend. However, if it is passed, for heaven's sake let us recognise that it is an innovation. It will create fierce public resentment. Martyrs will be made of respectable people. It is our duty to diminish the harm to the minimum. That is the purpose of my new clause. I hope that the House will approve it. Nevertheless, I still hope that the Bill fails.

Mr. Freud: The new clause which was so ably moved by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) seeks to establish a six-month buffer period during which the Minister may examine representations about the implementation of the legislation. Exemptions have been discussed during debates on the Bill. Some of those exemptions are frivolous. Some of them are more caring of the comfort of the person in the car than his safety. The exemptions include the fat, the thin, the tall, the small, those reversing and those who are stationary, driving instructors and those who intend to stop a number of times in a number of yards.
I request the Minister to give thought to another matter. In a democracy one should examine how minorities will be affected by new legislation. For that reason a person who suffers from claustrophobia or who produces a medical certificate stating that he should not wear a seat belt for some reason should be exempt from wearing a seat belt.

Mr. Toby Jessell: What has that to do with a six-month delay?

Mr. Freud: The period between a Bill being passed and its being implemented is a good time to instruct chief constables, as the Secretary of State for Employment recently instructed chief constables on the picketing laws. It is a valuable period and I am arguing in favour of the new clause.
There are many canals and riverbeds in my constituency, as there are hedges and ditches elsewhere. The Ouse, Nene and Lark run through my constituency and 16 ft. and 40 ft. drains abound. It

is dangerous to drive along an unfenced road, especially in a high wind.

Mr. Moate: On a point of order, Mr. Deupty Speaker. I appreciate that you cannot oblige hon. Members to be succinct or interesting. We have to put up with that. Surely the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) is not in order when he discusses exemptions. The delay proposed in the new clause is to take place after the regulations come into force and they will have already covered exemptions. Is it suggested that there will be no need to debate exemptions later?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) is correct. I was waiting to see how the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) related his arguments to the new clause.

Sir Ronald Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that you incautiously agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), but the purpose of the new clause is to impose a delay between when the regulations are made and when they come into force.

Mr Percy Grieve: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the whole purpose of the period of delay is to give time for reflection and consultation. That is relevant to the argument of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud).

Mr. Freud: The six-month period will enable the Minister and the police to examine the question of unfenced roads running alongside canals and rivers and to decide whether there should be an exemption for those driving along such roads or whether fences should be built.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: I do not doubt that there will be much consultation with local authorities, chief constables and motoring organisations and that it will take all of six months. However, that consultation will take place after the Bill becomes an Act and the regulations will then be brought to the House.

Mr. Freud: It is up to us to make the legislation as good as possible. My constituency has a vast mileage of unfenced roadway along canals and rivers. Many accidents in Cambridgeshire involve cars


being blown or pushed into canals or rivers. When occupants of such cars wear seatbelts it is hard, if not impossible, for the fire services to extract them from the water. In addition, occupants wearing seatbelts cannot take advantage of the air pocket which is often established in the top of the car.

Mr. Body: Is the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) aware that to the north of Cambridgeshire is an area which is almost identical to his constituency? Deaths have been caused in the way in which he describes. I hope that he will not limit his argument to Cambridgeshire since it is also important in Lincolnshire.

Mr. Freud: I had been reluctant to give a geographical rundown of the case that I wish to draw to the Minister's attention. However, I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman represents a constituency that neighbours mine to the north. I understand why he feels as he does. I also understand the feelings of those who represent other East Anglian constituencies or constituencies in the Lake District.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sorry to intervene just when he was building up an interesting flow of argument. I should like to make two points. First, the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), said that after this Bill becomes an Act—and some of us hope that it will not—the Minister will consult all the interested parties before laying the regulations down. However, I suggest that many people will not be aware of the regulations. They will not make representation to the Minister until they are put down. Therefore, although the hon. Gentleman feels in theory that the consultations will take place before the regulations are made, many people will agree that the great weight of argument and of lobbying will take place after they have been made. Until everyone has seen what the Minister has in mind, it will be difficult to pick an argument. It will be difficult to say that this is nonsense. If we go about this in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman, we shall cause a lot of disaffection, a lot of

upset and a lot of problems between the public and the police.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. An intervention should be brief.

Mr. Marlow: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to be as brief as possible. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the report produced by the Ministry of Transport gives an instance of a car that drove into the water? The person was not injured at the time, but because he was in a seat belt, and because he inhaled dirty water, he died some time later from a dreadful disease. That is a perfectly valid point.

Mr. Freud: I am grateful for brief interventions, even if they are, perhaps, directed at someone else. However, we are discussing new clause 2. I support it because there are laws in this land that are applied and others that remain on the statute book but are not applied. The Town Clauses Act 1894 makes it illegal to fly a kite in a main thoroughfare. It is also illegal to clean windows from the outside. Those actions were probably considered villainous when the Town Clauses Act appeared on the statute book. Over a period that was perhaps longer than the six months now suggested, it was decided not to prosecute for that sort of transgression. If the six month moratorium receives the consent of the House, we shall be able to investigate constituencies such as mine, which have unfenced roads. In East Anglia anglers often park their cars on the side of the road. They are hard to see in the early morning. They cause a substantially greater percentage of accidents per mile of road than occurs on roads which do not run beside waterways.

Mr. Moate: I wish to make a serious point. The hon. Gentleman seems to give the impression—although I am sure that he does not wish to do so—that it is dangerous to wear a seat belt when driving along such roads. There is general agreement that whatever one may think about compulsion, we wish to see people wearing seat belts. Many hon. Members have said that they wear seat belts. Does the hon. Gentleman want a message to go out to his constituents, to the effect that they should not wear seat belts when driving along such roads?

Mr. Freud: I have looked into this issue very carefully and I am grateful for a valid intervention. Anyone driving alongside a waterway will be afraid of slipping into it, especially in high winds. Many cars land in the water and the fear of that happening is exacerbated by an even greater fear of being unable to get out. I have talked to the Anglian water authority, to the Health Service, ambulance service and fire service. They all said that there is a genuine fear that is inherent to the consideration of what might happen if one was caught wearing a seat belt in a car that was upside down in the water.
I have never said that people must wear seat belts. However, there are certain circumstances in which some people will drive better if some of their fears are removed. Many have a genuine fear when driving alongside an unfenced road that one slip will land them in the water. The greater their mobility and the less they are constricted by a seat belt, the greater will be their chance of getting out of that accident. They will have a greater chance of floating upwards and availing themselves of the air pocket. That air pocket could make the difference between life and death. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman's question. The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, but I have answered it to the best of my ability.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Although I do not oppose the Bill, many people outside the House have a genuine fear of fire in their car, lorry or van. Such people probably drive many thousands of miles each year. They may have seen multiple crashes of all types where fire has been the main danger. They fear that, if we impose the wearing of seat belts, we shall enforce a law that will be responsible for people being killed by fire. Has the hon. Gentleman done any research on that? Has he found out how we can overcome that fear?

Mr. Freud: I have not done any research on that point. However, if new clause 2 is adopted, the period of six months will give the Government time to rethink. They should rethink whether, if seat belts become compulsory, a possible exemption could be made for unfenced roads. Perhaps the exemption could be indicated by a sign showing, for example,

an open seat belt buckle. Perhaps it should be left to the discretion of the local police force. Perhaps they should not press for prosecution when there is a good defence that can be backed up by the accident and death rate. I am not concerned about the mechanics. I am deeply concerned about the principle. I support new clause 2.

Mr. Lawrence: I support the new clause. I have not come to terms with the bill, but the Report stage is open to discussion only on the basis that the principle has been accepted by the House. My view is well known to anyone who is in the least interested. I believe that seat belts are a very important item in the insurance of road safety. I believe in them. Insurance companies and courts should do what they can to encourage the wearing of seat belts. When cars come off the production line, they should be equipped with devices that remind the driver and passenger to wear the seat belt. I have no objection to some cars coming off the assembly line with a device that ensures that the car cannot be driven unless the seat belt is worn.
But, when all that is said, I believe that freedom is even more important than the safety aspect that would result from the wearing of seat belts. The argument in favour of forcing people, against their will and on pain of criminal conviction, to wear seat belts is an emotional and impractical argument and such a dangerous infringement of freedom as to be thoroughly undesirable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I imagine that the principle would last six months, at least.

Mr. Lawrence: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my speech will not last six months. I shall endeavour to make the points that I feel it necessary to make with as much despatch as I can. Lest it be even remotely thought that it is any part of my intention to lengthen the proceedings on the Bill, even though I am strongly opposed to it, by advancing arguments that are not capable of rational support, I must make clear that it is not my intention. The sooner that we can get on to debate the various parts of the opposition to the Bill, the


sooner the difficulties facing the enforcement of the legislation will become apparent. That was my approach in Committee and will continue to be my approach.
I declare an interest as president of the National Association of Approved Driving Instructors. It is a worthy body which is utterly and completely committed to road safety, but its members are not in favour of forcing everyone, on pain of criminal conviction to wear a seat belt.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the association in favour of new clause 2?

Mr. Lawrence: I am sure that because a substantial number—in my opinion a majority—are opposed to the principle of the Bill they will naturally be in favour of a clause that is directed to improving the Bill in the sense that unless time is given for proper consideration by the public, the Bill will lack that essential requirement without which it cannot hope to be effective, namely public acceptability.

Mr. Jessel: Can my hon. Friend say whether the driving instructors and, indeed, he are in favour of the 400 extra deaths and the 4,000 to 5,000 extra serious injuries which would result from a six-month delay in the implementation of the Bill?

Mr. Lawrence: That is a preposterous oversimplification of the issues involved. My hon. Friend cannot prove that more people will die if the Bill is not passed than if it is passed. He underlines the emotional and irrational attitude of those who are promoting the legislation.

Sir Ronald Bell: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the intervention of our hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) shows clearly that the desire of the promoters of the Bill is that regulations should come into force on the day that they are made, in order, as they would put it, to avoid deaths and injuries?

Mr. Lawrence: Indeed, and the intervention also demonstrated the attitude of absolute intolerance that is shown to those of us who are raising legitimate and reasonable objections to the enforcement of the Bill.
In five sittings of the Standing Committee, however narrow we may have thought the issue was when the debate began, when we went into the details of what is physically required of the people of this country the complications proliferated and the difficulties of enforcement and implementation became obvious.
Unless we are to put on the statute book a piece of rubbish that will be rejected by the overwhelming majority of people, we must consider the objections and see whether they have value and whether there is sufficient evidence to support at every stage the substantial infringement of the liberty of the subject that the legislation requires.
I support the new clause, because if ever there were legislation that must have the approval of the people, this Bill, because of the difficulty of its enforcement, is it. In order for people to give their support they will need time to get to know and understand what the Bill requires of them. It became evident in Committee that there will also have to be time for a large range of technical improvements to be introduced.
I shall develop and put some clothing around the bones of the arguments that I have briefly outlined.

Mr. Robert Atkins: My hon. Friend has much experience in the practice of law and can therefore give the House the benefit of his opinion in a comparison between the enforcement of the Bill and its implications and the difficulties or otherwise of enforcing the offence of listening to pirate radio stations, which became impossible to enforce because no one could find those who were listening and no one would admit to doing so. Does my hon. Friend believe that there is any comparison between the enforcement of that rather six-month delay in the implementation of of the Bill?

Mr. Lawrence: Any examples of where Parliament has passed laws that have not had the widespread acceptance of the British people are useful in underlining that we must consider the practicality of the proposed legislation.
We are here primarily to produce legislation, and the temptation is to go on churning it out regardless of whether it will be the slightest use to the people


of this country. There are countless examples of legislation that has not been enforced and where effective dates have not been introduced. We have evidence in some branches of the law, particularly domestic proceedings of divorce where legislation has been passed and regulations made, but before the date of implementation the mood of the country or the legislature has changed so that the law has been repealed.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The doctrine of promiscuous legislation is not a duty that the whole House recognises. I should have said that we were here primarily to scrutinise carefully legislation that others, namely Governments, wish to promote, rather than to churn out legislation.

Mr. Lawrence: I accept that the main purpose of Parliament is to act as a sounding board of the nation, but we are a legislative assembly and the temptation to legislate is sometimes irresistible. However, we must resist it and must take the attitude that my hon. Friend has indicated, particularly when the Government, as, I am pleased to say, in this case, are not proposing the legislation.
I turn to the difficulty of enforcement. In summary, the law will place a great strain on the relationship between the police and the public—a strain which the police could well do without. When one calls for evidence of the way in which the law may not be enforced, one finds a good example from France where the compulsory wearing of seat belts, which was confined to rural areas, was introduced when the wearing rate was 80 per cent. In due course, the police did not actively enforce the law, no doubt for the same reasons that it would be difficult or impossible to enforce, and the wearing rate dropped to about 50 per cent. Half the drivers did not bother to wear seat belts, because they did not think that they would suffer any penalty and that the law could not be enforced.
We must try to avoid that sort of situation arising in this country. We must not pass laws that cannot be enforced.

Mr. Jessel: How about Australia?

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend talks about Australia as if that is the answer to everything. Australia has one of the worst driving records of any country whether or not seat belts are compulsory. Australia has speed limits. Some of the

evidence put forward is highly selective. It comes from a state in Australia over a given period. It would take hours if not days—I do not propose to take that time —to examine precisely the effects in Australia.
It does not behove my hon. Friend to say, by way of sedentary interruption, "What about Australia?" as if Australia is the end of the argument. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, whom I admire and respect and whom I followed as candidate for Peckham, he is showing his intolerance with the views of those of us who are opposed to the Bill and who, in respect of this matter, are opposed to the implementation of regulations until a period of six months has passed.

Mr. Russell Kerr: The hon. Gentleman and the House may be interested to know that the statistical evidence from Australia is, at best, inconclusive and in no sense supports the contrary point of view that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) is trying to suggest.

Mr. Lawrence: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose views do not normally accord with my own. In this matter, however, he is fortified by the fact that he speaks with an antipodean accent and, therefore, must be taken to have some deeper knowledge and understanding of that part of the world than those of us who lack that accent.

Mr. Spriggs: I am not bothered about about the Australians or the Australian case. I am bothered about what happens in Great Britain. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has visited hospital accident units and discussed the reasons for the insufficiency of beds in National Health Service hospitals due to the number taken by patients who have been badly mangled or injured in road accidents.
If the hon. Gentleman had had any contact with surgeons whose job is trying to save lives after serious car accidents where seat belts have not been used, I feel that he would not support new clause 2. The main object of that new clause is to restrain the Minister from bringing into operation the enforcement of the wearing of seat belts for a further six months. During that period, hundreds, or perhaps, thousands, of lives could


be saved. I shall oppose new clause 2 on those grounds.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Lawrence: I am in a difficulty, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you would advise me what course I should take when two hon. Members wish to contribute on a particular point.

Mr. Lewis: I should like to give the hon. Gentleman some help.

Mr. Lawrence: I should like the hon. Gentleman's assistance if it is in order for me to sit down and take a second suplementary intervention.

Mr. Lewis: I had intended to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) says is legitimate. But hospitals are also filled by fat men and fat women who are overweight, by people with cancer, who smoke too much, and by alcoholics who drink too much. I have not heard of the House bringing in a law to stop people from eating, drinking or smoking. It would be very difficult to enforce.

Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman says that he has not heard of the House bringing in a law to stop drinking, overeating and smoking. But the danger is that if we continue to introduce legislation of the type we are discussing, it will not be long before gentlemen like the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), such is his depth of feeling on the matter, start to argue that as a thousand lives would be saved if people were stopped from driving without scat belts, a further 20,000 lives would be saved if they stopped smoking and goodness knows how many lives saved if they stopped drinking. I do not know whether a statistical assessment has been made of the number of hon. Members, let alone people in the country, who possess a greater than natural average girth. The danger of this legislation is knowing where it will end.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: Is my hon. Friend aware of the body known as ASH—Action on Smoking and Health —which is dedicated to trying to stop everyone in the country from smoking? A vast amount of public funds is already spent on trying to prevent people from

smoking. There is no end to what these do-gooders are trying to do to our freedoms.

Sir Ronald Bell: My hon. Friend will perhaps not mind if I bring him back to new clause 2 following that last intervention. The point put to my hon. Friend by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) about the six months' delay causing extra congestion in hospitals through accident injuries is nonsense. One of the biggest occupiers of hospital beds is mental illness and mental stress. Surely, the whole purpose of new clause 2 is to diminish, as far as possible, the neurosis and mental stress that would be caused by the introduction of this legislation.

Mr. Lawrence: I should like to try to summarise the interventions made about this part of my speech so that I can make a genuine effort to reply. I accept what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) has said without further discussion and argument. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) says. I would quote Mr. Justice Brandeis, a great American judge, who said, in a famous case in the United States:
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when governments' purposes are beneficent. The greatest damages to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding".
That is the position here. I do not impugn the zeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) or the zeal of Opposition Members who get angry and worked up, and continue exaggerating the number of lives that would be saved far beyond what the statisticians and Government advisers suggest.
I agree with the hon. Member for St. Helens that our hospitals are full of people who might not be there if they wore seat belts. I am in favour of the wearing of seat belts. The more encouragement that can be given for people to wear seat belts, the fewer lives will be lost and the less damage will be incurred and the better it will be for our society.

Mr. Marks: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman supports the wearing of seat belts. In an intervention in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell), the hon. Gentleman argued that only 80 per cent.


would wear seat belts and 20 per cent. would refuse. That is double what it is now. Does he accept that there would be a doubling as a result of the Act?

Mr. Lawrence: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I gave an example—

Mr. Marks: I was.

Mr. Lawrence: If the hon. Gentleman was, he was probably not paying the closest of attention to my speech. This delays the passage of the Bill. I have to repeat myself. I was giving the example of France where, following the compulsory implementation of seat belts but because the police were not enforcing the law for reasons that I hope I shall have an opportunity to develop, the wearing rate fell from 80 per cent. to 50 per cent. There is no guarantee that because one passes a law forcing people, on pain of criminal conviction, to wear a seat belt the rate of use will rise. The rate of use is very difficult to assess.
One can test the number of people who are wearing seat belts at the time of an accident or the number wearing them when a vehicle is stopped in the commission of a criminal offence. I suppose that one could ask people in a public opinion poll whether they were wearing seat belts. However, all that is a long way from proving a wearing rate of 50 or 80 per cent. throughout the population.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: If and when the Bill becomes law will the hon. Gentleman be vocal in advising his constituents to obey the law?

11 am

Mr. Lawrence: I say without wishing to cause any offence that the hon. Gentleman has not been here as long as I have —I have not been here that long—and will not know that one repeated theme I have adopted whenever I have been able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye in any debate is that the rule of law is supreme and must always be enforced, because otherwise there is no future for our society. I have sometimes been led to the observation that if only Labour Members had as much respect for the rule of law as we Conservatives have, there might be a lot less lawlessness in society.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) was a Mem-

ber when a law was passed to compel the wearing of crash helmets by motorcyclists. Does he recall that there was a big campaign to exempt certain people? It took a little longer than six months, but eventually the exemption was granted. My right hon. and hon. Friends voted for that exemption, so perhaps under this Bill the need for other similar exemptions will arise and lead to a campaign in which my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) will join us.

Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) makes a valid point on this subject, as I would expect. He underlines the need for the new clause.
I was referring to the difficulty of enforcement and I gave an example of what happened in France when wearing seat belts became compulsory and the police could not enforce the law. I envisage a number of situations which illustrate the strain that will develop between the police and the public here over enforcement.
Suppose that a policeman stops a vehicle believing that an occupant is not wearing a seat belt and finds that he was wrong, perhaps because of the speed of the vehicle or the poor light. That gives rise to conflict between the policeman—who will be prepared, if challenged, to defend his right to stop the vehicle even though he was wrong—and the driver or passenger who has the freedom to drive along the highway unimpeded by a policeman or anyone else but is stopped and made to give an explanation. That is the simplest case.
There is then a further case where the policeman would be right to stop the vehicle because a seat belt was not being worn. There could be an argument. The person, knowing that he was in the wrong and about to be stopped by a policeman might clip on the seat belt or pretend that the seat belt had been fastened but that he had at the moment unclipped it. Again friction occurs between the police officer and the occupant of the car.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. I am listening closely and it seems that the hon. Gentleman's argument would apply whether or not there was a delay in the Act coming into effect. Will he therefore relate his argument to why the delay should occur?

Mr. Lawrence: Of course I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but since you took the Chair after I began speaking perhaps I should offer an explanation. My point was that it is necessary to impose the delay because the Bill would not work without public acceptability. That acceptability will not be achieved where the law cannot be enforced. I am therefore showing that there will be difficulty over enforcement. I shall move on to explain, if I have the time, why it is important to have a delay during which the public can be made aware of the law so that they will support it.
I come next to the third possibility where a police officer is right to stop a vehicle when a seat belt is not worn but where the person concerned is entitled to exemption. There are two possibilities here. The first is that the passenger, although qualified for exemption, has not got round to obtaining an exemption certificate. The driver or passenger could be pregnant. The Minister may make regulations exempting someone who is over a certain weight in the course of pregnancy, either because of that weight and the fact that seat belts cannot easily be adjusted to different girths, or because it is medical opinion that women who are in a state of great sensitivity because they are pregnant are emotionally incapable of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have tried to indicate to the hon. Gentleman what I feel falls within the confines of this new clause. He is advancing a good argument, but not on this new clause. He is going into a general debate of whether seat belts should be worn. I hope he will give clear reasons why there should be a delay.

Mr. Robert Atkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely if we are discussing a delay in the implementation of the regulations of six months, that discussion must cover the whole area of the wearing of seat belts. Surely, therefore, my hon. Friend is within the bounds of order in what he is saying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I say to the hon. Gentleman with the greatest respect that the debate is about a delay. If the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) can relate his remarks to the delay and not to the general arguments which have

been expressed repeatedly on the Bill—and I am saying this in a completely neutral capacity—he will be in order. He must explain why there should be a delay in order for people to be educated, not go into the details of that education.

Mr. Lawrence: Of course, I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that I was unable to persuade you of the relevance of my remarks the first time you called me to order. This law will not be enforceable unless it is accepted by the people. It will not be accepted unless there is such a delay in its implementation as to enable the people not only to understand what is required of them but to become sympathetic to the law. The people will not accept the law if they think that it can be broken with impunity, if they think they can simply brush aside the fact that a policeman is trying to enforce it.
I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not seek to make irrelevant remarks. As I said earlier, there is enough meat in our opposition to the Bill for us not to have to waste time on matters that are unnecessarily drawn out. There is so much ground for objection that I am perfectly happy to move on from point to point as quickly as I can. However, public acceptability is at the root of the argument about enforcement of the Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Of course that is so with any Bill. The argument that the hon. Gentleman is making is relevant to other amendments and new clauses, but not to this. The hon. Gentleman could go in depth into the exemptions, but we are not discussing who should be exempted. If the Bill becomes an Act the public accept it in the manner in which it comes before them. If exemptions are allowed the people will know of them and I say again with the greatest respect that the hon. Gentleman's argument is related to the general principle. We are not debating that. We are debating whether there should be a delay.

Sir Ronald Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I moved the Second Reading of the clause, I concentrated—with, I believe, the concurrence of the Chair at the time—on the complications of the regulations likely to be


made and the problem that the public would have in learning about them from reading the newspapers, hearing them discussed in broadcasts and so forth, if the regulations came into force on the day they were made. That, it seems to me, is why a pause is desirable.
Would my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) therefore be in order if he directed his attention to the complication of the regulations which will be made—we know roughly what they will be—and the impossibility of the public knowing about them if they come into force the day they are made?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to speak about the difficulties of enforcement, but not to go into whether, for example, pregnant women will be exempted. That is completely different. The question of general principle as to what the Bill would provide in giving exemptions and the time necessary for that to be made known to the public is in order, but it is not in order to go into detail about what the exemptions will be.

Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not becoming obvious to the House —and probably soon to the country at large—that the delay here in question is not the delay referred to in the new clause but delay in the passage of the Bill itself, a delay which will be a disgrace to those hon. Members who are taking up the time of the House?

Mr. Body: Certainly not.

Mr. Robertson: Is it not a fact that they are delaying the passage of legislation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made no suggestion that the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is delaying the House. It is the task of the Chair to keep hon. Members within the confines of a new clause or amendment under debate, and I seek to do that without any feeling whatever about the Bill itself.
But what the hon. Gentleman has been saying since I took the Chair would be completely relevant to a Second Reading debate on seat belts and, with the greatest respect, I hope that he will confine his

argument briefly to why there should be a delay.

Mr. Lawrence: I hope that the House will not expect me to comment upon the arrogant and intolerant intervention of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), which fills those of us, both here and in the country, who are concerned about the Bill with utter despair.
May I say in response to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in the spirit of conciliation and compromise for which I am well known, I accept, of course, your indication that I should move to the next stage of my argument, and I shall at once do so. I merely summarise the point thus far. It is inevitable that in enforcement there will be an element of police discretion, which will be challenged by the public. There will be an element of aggravation and hostility between police and public. There will be temptation for people not to do anything to accord with the legislation unless there is an accident or they are committing some other offence. Unless there is public acceptability there is no hope of the law being useful, and unless there is a delay of six months between the passing of the regulations and their implementation there cannot be public acceptability. I move, therefore, to the question of public awareness.
The public must have time to fit into the provisions of the Bill. That does not mean merely that they must have time to consider whether they are capable of qualifying for one of the exemptions which the regulations may in due course provide. Where the regulations require the securing of a certificate, whether a medical certificate or some other, it would be ridiculous for us not to contemplate some time lag. We are speaking here about 25 million drivers, and probably more passengers, all of whom must consider—perhaps they will consider it in only a moment or two with the view to rejecting it—whether they are eligible for an exemption.
A substantial number of people would be covered by the list of exemptions which we may later debate. There has already been some debate on that matter. One has merely to think of the thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of women who become pregnant or the


thousands of people who suffer, say, from some phobia.
11.15 am
Looking at the matter from the point of view of practicalities, one cannot expect every driver to stop driving and every passenger to stop being a passenger the moment that the law and the regulations are known until such time as they manage to run to ground whoever it is who will produce for them an exemption certificate.
As a matter of bureaucratic common sense, there must be a delay. The certificates will have to be printed. A Minister might say that before the regulations were debated the Stationery Office would start printing the certificates, but I think that Governments have recently been bitten by preparation, at great public expense, for legislation which they fondly expected to be passed but which was not passed. One has only to cite the example of that wonderful building in Edinburgh which was redeveloped to be the centre of the Scottish devolution Assembly. The House threw that out, and millions of pounds of public money were wasted. I do not believe, therefore, that a Minister would begin printing exemption certificates before he had the approval of the House to the making of exemptions.
If there be any merit in the argument adduced hitherto that the House will have plenty of time to discuss whether exemptions—and which exemptions—should be a matter for regulation, it will be remembered that that will arise on the negative or affirmative resolution procedure at an hour in the morning when the House does not normally sit. Moreover, that must presuppose that hon. Members will have some say and perhaps be able to reject an exemption or ask for an exemption to be interposed contrary to the Minister's wish.
If that occasion arises, as those who sponsor the Bill expect it to arise, it will be sheer madness to assume that all the bureaucratic machinery will be ready for the individual in our society to take advantage of it at one minute past midnight, even if everyone wanted to start queuing up outside sub-post offices or wherever one will have to go to claim an exemption certificate.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend is a lawyer, which I am not, and I seek his help. As I read the new clause, the six months' delay applies only to regulations made by the Minister subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It does not apply to those subject to the negative resolution procedure.
I intervene on this point only because it seems to me that some of the examples which my hon. Friend has been using—for instance, pregnant women—would come under the negative resolution procedure as the Bill stands, not the affirmative resolution procedure, so that the new clause would not apply to them.

Sir Ronald Bell: I think that I can—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member who has the Floor must indicate whether he is giving way to another hon. Member.

Mr. Lawrence: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that I had done that. I give way to my hon. and learned Friend.

Sir R. Bell: I think that the broad distinction is that the original new regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and amending regulations would be subject to the negative resolution procedure. That is why I thought it sufficient to confine the new clause to the new regulations which will come into force when the Bill is passed, giving a delay of six months before the law begins to operate, instead of referring to amending regulations which could come later.

Mr. Lawrence: I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for that clarification. The point which I make is valid in that connection. We cannot stop people driving until the wheels of the bureaucratic machinery and the whim of the printers, to say nothing of the availability of doctors, give the citizenry the necessary cover.

Mr. George Robertson: rose—

Mr. Lawrence: I hesitate to give way to the hon. Gentleman in view of the utter intolerance of his previous intervention. If he can undertake that his intervention will be reasonable, I shall of course, give way.

Mr. Robertson: I hesitate to intervene and therefore prolong the hon.


Gentleman's speech. However, for the sake of consistency in the argument I should like to make a point about his previous statement on devolution. He has got the wrong end of the stick. Parliament passed the legislation authorising expenditure for and the creation of a structure for Scottish devolution. The Scottish people voted in a referendum. The reason why the Scotland Act was repealed was that a provision brought in by Parliament was not satisfied. In the referendum 40 per cent. of the electorate did not vote in favour of devolution. Judging from the statistical evidence and the opinion polls, if a referendum were held on seat belts, it is not certain that the people would vote in favour. Therefore, what on earth is the point of raising the issue of devolution?

Mr. Lawrence: That was a more temperate intervention. However, I am not sure that I fully understand its direct relevance. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene in my speeches again, I shall be happy to give way. He underlines my point that it is all very well for a Minister to agree to start the bureaucratic process whereby the citizenry can take advantage of the legislation if, in due course, that legislation does not come to pass and the taxpayer is involved in providing a large sum of public money.
In order to be specific, I wish to identify two spheres in which the possibility of delay in the implementation of the Bill would have the harmful effect of forcing people not to drive or travel as passengers in cars unless they broke the law.
The first sphere is the time that might elapse in the printing of the various certificates. I shall not dwell on that aspect, but hon. Members have a better claim to a divine right to get material printed and presented to them as legislators than does anyone in the land. But, time and time again, for industrial dispute reasons or whatever, we cannot get material printed. There is a possibility that even though the Bill, including the exemptions, is passed and implemented it still may be days, weeks or months before the certificates become available.
A better example is that of medical exemption. Unless every doctor gives up the first three-quarters of every surgery for the next six months, seeing people

who ask for medical exemptions—which I think is a riduculous supposition—there will be people who want to drive or to be passengers who are not able to get medical exemptions from their doctors in time. They will be left with the choice of not driving or not becoming passengers until the doctor can see them, or of breaking the law and running the risk of being stopped by a policeman. It is inevitable that there will be time delays. The doctors are complaining now about pressures put upon them by insurance companies. In Committee we had a short discussion about who will be able to give a certificate, in what circumstances, and what the fee will be. Who will pay? Will it be the State or the private individual?
In Committee I read a letter that I had received from the RAC saying that its attention had been drawn to a case in which a doctor had refused to grant an exemption certificate unless a certain sum of money was paid to him. The Minister said that there would be an agreement with the BMA on such matters. Such matters should be clarified, so that either the BMA has an agreement with all doctors that anyone claiming an exemption certificate will pay a fee, or it should be agreed that the State will pay.
If the matter is left to the medical profession to decide whether it should interrupt the essential treatment of a patient in order to give a certificate to a person who may want to drive or who may want to be a passenger, the delay in the implementation of the Bill will be substantial, harmful and unacceptable to the majority of drivers.

Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend has touched upon an important aspect of the enforcement of the Bill, if it is enacted. Surely, if there is to be a medical decision on the question whether an exemption is appropriate under regulations named by the Minister, there must be an appellate procedure. The six months' delay between the making of the regulations and their coming into force should be considered. We must decide what is the best way of protecting the rights of the individual.

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful for that intervention, which strengthens my point. In case hon. Members think that I am putting forward a spurious argument, for which I have no evidence, I should like


to read part of the letter from the RAC, which underlines the difficulty that may arise over the immediate implementation of the Bill. The letter says:
We recently received a complaint about a fee of £10 demanded by a doctor for a certificate confirming that a driver over the age of 70 was fit to continue driving—as required by the DVLC and his insurance company. It was mentioned that the only task performed by the doctor was signing the certificate since he was fully aware of the medical condition of his patient. In answer to the patient's protest, it was said that the fee was imposed in accordance with the requirements of the British Medical Association. When inquiries were made, it was ascertained that the BMA had not fixed or recommended a fee but regarded £10 as not a large sum to be paid by an individual who could afford to run a motor car!
That is the sort of difficulty that will arise unless there is a reasonable, sensible delay between the passing and the implementation of the law. I should have thought that most hon. Members would consider six months to be reasonable.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I do not think that my hon. Friend has grasped the point that the powers exercisable by the Minister on medical conditions do not fall into the classes mentioned in clause 2. Therefore, they do not fall into the class that, pursuant to the Bill, will be required to be made by affirmative resolution. If they do not fall into that class, the new clause and the delay that it will involve does not apply to them. I do not think that my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) have fully grasped this legal point.

Mr. Lawrence: It may be that I have not grasped that point. There are many points—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When we are dealing with a legal point, and when we need legal advice, I feel that the Attorney-General and the other Law Officers should be present. I do not mean to be disrespectful to any of the lawyers present, but we have a number of different opinions and I think that we should have a Law Officer here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that although

that is a very interesting observation it is not a point of order.

Mr. Lewis: Will the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman on another point of order?

Mr. Lewis: I am asking the hon. Gentleman to give way, and he has given way to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As there is controversy between the lawyers here—I accept their views in preference to the views of some of the Law Officers that I have known—do not they think that the Government should bring the Law Officers here? Then we could hear from them who is right—whether it is the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell), the hon. Member for Burton, or the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who I do not think is learned, though he seems to me to put the matter much better than the lawyers. The hon. Gentleman might care to ask for the Law Officers to come. I agree that the Chair cannot do it.

Mr. Lawrence: I am anxious that we should get on with the Bill, if only to be able to ventilate as many of the objections to it as possible. I am not sure that there would be any great advantage to anybody if, this being private Members' time, we asked the Chair to adjourn until my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General could be brought here from wherever he is, explaining the law on picketing or whatever else, probably to greater advantage to the country.
If there is merit in the point—and there usually is merit in the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop)—it will probably have to be referred to a Select Committee to consider its possible hybridity and legal complications. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not taking up his tempting suggestion and that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not opinionate or pontificate upon the validity of this point. In any event, it is not the central issue that we are debating, although it may have substantial importance.
Perhaps I may continue as I seem to be doing, rather like a yachtsman tacking consistently against the wind. I seem to


be going backwards rather than forwards, although I am trying to get to the end of this race.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman used an analogy with yachting and tacking. I know that he did so extemporaneously. All those who go yachting should wear life jackets, but there is no law requiring them to do so. Shall we not find that a law is introduced that everyone who goes yachting, boating and rowing must wear a life jacket, because that would save a number of lives?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) even tries to answer that question, I can say that we may be having a Bill on that matter, and I ask him to save his observations for that.

Mr. Lawrence: If there were a Bill on that matter, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield would move a similar new clause, because there would doubtless be a substantial delay before yachtsman could carry on yachting if they were subject to any exemptions.
My third point has been raised consistently over the years. It is that the state of technological achievement in the provision of safety devices in vehicles, particularly seat belts, leaves a great deal to be desired. Some time will be needed to develop and improve the existing system.
In earlier debates we have discussed what sort of seat belt we are thinking of requiring people to wear, on pain of criminal conviction. In the end it comes down to the inertia reel seat belt. Most of us are beginning to have experience of that type in our cars, if we have not already had experience over the years. But there is ample evidence that the inertia reel seat belt is potentially very dangerous in some cars and in some circumstances, for all sorts of reasons.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman can tell us how he is relating this matter to a six months' delay. We are not discussing types of seat belt.

Mr. Lawrence: I relate the matter in this way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, quite easily. On the presumption that necessity is the mother of invention, and that when the Bill is passed there will be a necessity

to have a properly safe and completely acceptable form of restraint, a reasonable delay may make it possible that a motor manufacturer will introduce a seat belt that is acceptable and takes away the criticism expressed by some people.
The critics, who include the RAC, say that people are being forced to do something that in some circumstances may injure or kill them.
It has been said that if only we had a little more time we should have a safe form of seat belt or restraint, yet years have gone by and the examinations have gone on slowly, without a great deal of enthusiasm, because it has not been the law that there is a requirement, on pain of a criminal offence, to have a seat belt. Technological improvement has been relatively slow. On the passing of a regulation there would be a necessity to speed up the technical development. If there were a reasonable time—say, six months—it might be possible to introduce forms of restraint that were more reliable and less open to criticism than the inertia reel seat belt.

Mr. Marlow: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because I know that he wants to get on with his argument with all dispatch.
My hon. Friend mentioned inertia reel seat belts in connection with the six-month delay. Many people have such belts. If the legislation is passed most people, being law-abiding, will want to make sure that they are obeying not simply the letter of the law but its spirit.
Many of those with inertia reel seat belts never know whether the belts work unless they are involved in an accident. That concerns me greatly. Like most hon. Members, I always wear my seat belt. If one slows down in a car or brakes, one finds that the belt runs out of the reel. Only if one is in an accident does one know whether it is working. If we have a six months' delay, many people will want to make sure that the belts are working. I do not know how they would do it, but it would take time—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not see how what the hon. Gentleman is saying relates to a six months' delay. It applies now. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that such belts should be tried out by


people beforehand. We are not discussing that matter under the new clause. It would be completely out of order to go into it.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must now put to you as a point of order the points that I tried to make by way of intervention.
The debate on the new clause is going right outside the scope of the clause. New clause 2 restricts the period of six months' delay to such measures as have been approved
by both Houses of Parliament…under section 1".
Clause 1, as clause 2 says, comes into effect as a result of section 199 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. As subsection (3) of that section makes clear, that is done by the negative resolution procedure, and nothing subject to the negative resolution procedure can be affected by new clause 2.
In clause 2 of the Bill two exemptions to the negative resolution procedure that are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure appear in lines 42 and 43:

"(a) a class of vehicle, or
(b) a seating position in a vehicle or class of vehicle,"

I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if the new clause is accepted by the House, the only regulations that will be affected by the six-month regulation, and therefore the subject of legitimate debate, are those that appear in lines 42 and 43, on page 2 of the Bill, which I have just read. They do not and cannot apply to whether somebody is pregnant, a Calvinist or anything else, that is not included in lines 42 and 43.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may well be that the hon. Gentleman is right. What we are discussing here is a specific amendment, and that is all I am concerned with at the moment. I am not concerned with the other implications that the hon. Gentleman has put forward. If the House accepts what the hon. Gentleman has said it can either accept or reject the amendment. That is all that I am concerned about.

Sir Ronald Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has overlooked the fact

that the initial regulations will clearly apply to some class of vehicle or other—they are bound to. Therefore, they are caught by clause 3. They will also apply to classes of persons who are not at present subject to this restriction and therefore they will be caught by clause 3.
The initial regulations must apply the controls to certain classes of vehicle and person. That is why I said that the first regulations must be caught by my new clause and subject to the six-month delay. Subsequent regulations would have to be looked at to see whether they came within lines 42 and 43 of the Bill. It is quite true that they might not do so, but the first regulations are bound to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have been in the law too long to give an off-the-cuff answer. It is not for the Chair to answer the point made by the hon. Member. The new clause is quite specific in what it says. It may well be that it is wrongly drafted. If it is, the House may wish to reject it. But it is not for the Chair to enter into this discussion.

Mr. Lawrence: If this new clause were drafted wrongly it would be the first lapse in such a matter that I have ever detected in my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. Those of us who have some experience of the law would have detected it, drawn it to his attention and have had no part in advancing before the House a new clause that we knew to be defective. I do not think that it is defective. Although what my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton said may be of the highest interest in academic circles, I am not sure that it affects what I am saying. We are discussing whether, from the time that a regulation becomes law by negative or affirmative resolution, there should be a delay in its implementation to give the public time to do what is necessary to enable them to drive vehicles that are subject to those exemptions.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I did not allege that the amendment was defective. It clearly is not. The new clause could not have been selected if it had been defective. My point is that its effect is different from what my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) believes it to be. It is substantially different.

Mr. Lawrence: That may be, but to allay the voices of doubt I make absolutely clear what I believe to be the effect of the new clause. For whatever reason and by whatever means a regulation becomes law, thereafter there should be a delay of six months to give time for the practical, realistic and material procedures to be followed to enable the citizen to take advantage of the legislation without oppression.
I will move on to the point that I began to make about five minutes ago. It is my third point and it is about the need for a delay so that technological improvements can be made to remove the aggression, irritation and hostility that might otherwise be felt by people who are forced to wear seat belts that are to some degree defective.
11.45 am
In case hon. Members think that I am making a point without evidence to substantiate it—it might even be said that I am scaremongering—I shall read part of an article written in The Times on this subject on 11 September 1975. The article is headed
Failure shown in inertia seatbelts
and begins:
An alarming incidence of failure of inertia seatbelts to lock, resulting in serious in juries to the wearer, is disclosed today in a report from the accident research unit of Birmingham university. The report studied accidents in which 108 passengers wearing seat belts were seriously hurt. In 18 cases excessive forward movement resulted in their injuries and eight were associated with the failure of the inertia reel system to lock, or to lock soon enough, to prevent the wearer from hitting the side of the vehicle As only 28 of the 108 passengers were wearing inertia belts, the conclusion can be drawn that excessive forward movement is a dominant characteristic of the inertia reel system.
The article continues:
The report prepared by Dr. Murray Mackay and Dr. Peter Gloyns, two leading authorities on traffic accidents, is published in Antocar magazine. It is the first authoritative challenge to the generally held view that inertia belts are more effective than the static type.
The Department of the Environment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how this relates in any way to the six-month delay? He is discussing types of seat belt—a subject that is completely outside the amendment that we are discussing. He has been

speaking for one hour and 10 minutes, and there are other hon. Members waiting to speak.

Mr. Lawrence: I concede that there are other hon. Members in the House—principally on the Government Benches—who wish to bring before the attention of the House the numerous objections to the implementation of the Bill. I try to give substance to the arguments I advance in order to be helpful. The importance of what I am saying and its relation to the new clause was, I should have thought, quite obvious, but I shall repeat it in case I am deluding myself. If people are to be forced, on pain of a criminal offence being committed, to wear a seat belt that can be harmful and has been shown to be harmful—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an argument about whether people should wear seat belts. It has nothing to do with the question whether there should be a delay in implementing it.

Mr. Marks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have been debating this amendment for two hours and 10 minutes. The whole of that time, except for occasional interventions has been taken up by supporters of the amendment. I give notice that I intend to move, That the Question be now put, but the House should have the opportunity to hear the sponsor and the Minister before I do that. If the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) goes on much longer there will not be much time for them to say anything.

Mr. Lawrence: The implication of what the hon. Member has said is a little unfair. I have been interrupted on numerous occasions by hon. Members on both sides of the House who had important things to say which have considerably developed and strengthened the argument. Had I been left to my own devices, my speech would have been at least half as long. The impatience of those who wish to get this intolerant and illiberal piece of legislation on the statute book deprives them of the objective view of properly expressed arguments with conviction behind them.
The fact remains that if I am to be interrupted during the course of making a point, the point I am making will be lost upon the House, perhaps with consequent


disadvantage. Perhaps I may just be allowed to complete—

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to advance arguments that he advanced on other amendments during five long sittings of the Committee?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is certainly within order for an hon. Member to advance an argument that is relevant to the amendment. The reason why I have been on my feet so often—I hate doing it—is that in my view much of the argument is outside the terms of what we are debating.

Mr. Lawrence: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) wishes to intervene.

Mr. Body: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having given way; otherwise I would probably have been precluded from making a point that no one else has made. This is an important issue. There are some in the House who would wish to exclude some of the arguments. However, does my hon. Friend agree that quite a large number of people, of whom I am one, own rather elderly cars and have fitted static belts, and would wish to go over to the modern type of belt? It is quite unrealistic to expect to have these new and safer belts fitted within the six months.
That is a very cogent reason for the delay. It needs to be argued and heard by the House. We ought to have a delay of a minimum of six months to enable us to have these belts fitted to our cars.

Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Lawrence My hon. Friend is making, perhaps more effectively than I have been able to do, the point that I was seeking to make. For all sorts of technical reasons—reasons of technical improvement or of technical change of the seat belts that are at present in cars—it is necessary—nay, it is vital, if one is to be realistic—to have a delay. If one is to get acceptability of this legislation on the part of the public, so that they are prepared to go along with the law, notwithstanding the acute difficulties of enforcement, they must be persuaded that the seat belts that they are being forced to put in their cars and wear will be utterly safe.

In the present state of technological development it is quite clear—I could have gone on reading the article had you not intervened to stop me, Mr. Deputy Speaker—from the highest authorities concerned with the safety of seat belts, that there is a lot wrong with the existing technology.

What I am saying is that there must be a delay so that the scientists can continue their work with perhaps a lot more application than they have otherwise been moved to do, because this has not been a Bill that has become law. They will have to be encouraged to continue their work to make seat belts so safe that every member of the public, who will have to be a partner to the enforcement of this law—because the police do not have the power to do it unless the public accept it and are partners to it—will be able to feel that what he or she is wearing is safe enough to wear.

I shall rush to the end of my speech in order to give opportunities for my hon. Friends to make their contribution to this very important debate. I am not merely repeating matters that have been aired in Committee. This is a new clause, which throws a completely new light upon the operation of the Bill. Therefore, it is most important that the House should know that at any rate one hon. Member on the Government Benches—I do not claim to have every one with me, although I may have—appreciates that if the Bill is passed and the regulation is made, whether by affirmative or negative procedure, at midnight on I January, it is completely unrealistic and hopeless to expect the British people immediately to clip themselves into their seat belts and to accord immediately with the legislation unless a reasonable time limit has expired for them to get their certificates of exemption, to have their seat belts modernised, and to acquire the sort of feelings that are necessary for conformity with this legislation.

If we do not do that, what we shall be doing is deliberately putting on to the statute book a piece of law that we know will be broken and rejected by the overwhelming majority of people because it is impractical and unreasonable. To do that sort of thing would be an absolute abuse of what we in this place are here for.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: I hope that the House will bear with me, because my voice is rather thick and I shall be somewhat brief. I am recovering—I hope—from a heavy cold.
The new clause is extremely simple. It merely asks for a simple delay of six months after the regulations are made. We have spent two and a half hours discussing it. That has been largely because of the parliamentary skills of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconfield (Sir R. Bell) and the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), to which I have always paid great tribute If it is possible to listen with exasperated enjoyment, that is what I have been doing for the last two and a half hours.
However, a number of points have been raised on which I should like to comment briefly. The important matter was put by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield when he began his speech. My note of what he said was that, in terms of lives saved, if it were all true and multiplied by 10, he would still oppose the Bill. I think that that is a fair indication of his feeling. I accept his honesty about it. Some of us take a different view, but the hon. and learned Member believes that this gives him carte blanche, in his opinion and according to his conscience, to do everything possible within the rules of the House to stop the Bill from becoming law. On that basis, we understand each other.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If the hon. Member's criterion for passing legislation or not doing so is the saving of life, why, when he was a Minister concerned with transport, did he not accede to the request to make laminated windscreens compulsory?

Mr. Carmichael: I have frequently discussed that matter with the hon. Member, both officially and off the record. It is a very wide argument, as he knows very well, and I am sure that I should be pulled up by the Chair if I went into it. The hon. Member and I have discussed it at great length. Many suggestions can be made about the saving of lives. In the Bill I am putting forward one that is obvious and simple. It is inexpensive. It is practically a no-cost method of saving what is generally considered to be about 1,000 lives and about 10,000 serious

injuries from accidents per year. That is what we are discussing today.
Of course, it is a change in the law, and as such, the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield and the hon. Member for Burton take great exception to it on the question of freedom of the individual. I believe that that is really the only question that is raised by the Bill.
I return to the question of the six-month period. The Bill has had a great deal of publicity. I have received a very large amount of mail about it, it has had very wide publicity in newspapers and magazines. I do not believe that if the Bill were passed and the regulations were made, it would take the British public six months to become familiar with them.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Carmichael: I want to get on.

Mr. Grieve: I know that, and I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Surely the six-month period is necessary to give people who may have medical objections, among other people, time to adjust and to take advice. In my experience, many old people have a rooted objection to tying themselves up in seat belts.

Mr. Carmichael: I hope to be able to say something about that matter, because it is the one point of substance in relation to the new clause.
The problem that I see in the hard line of the six-month period is that if we pass the Bill today the public would begin to think that seat belts were already compulsory, then the regulations would come in later and they would then think that belts were compulsory; but then there would be total confusion. This would be bad.
On the other hand, the hon. Member for Burton raised a valid point about the medical aspects and the need to give some consideration and time for people to get certificates and to have discussions with their doctors. There is some substance in that point but I would not wish it to be put into the Act. However, I hope that the Minister will incorporate into the regulations, as a once-and-for-all measure, something that would give time for people to get certificates of exemption. I hope that the


Minister will give the House some guidance on that matter.
12 noon
The hon. Member for Burton also raised a point about scientists and the improvement of the techniques of seat belts. I am sure that he does not take that point seriously, for seat belts will continue to be improved. It is a continuous process of new improvements and new designs. I am sure he hopes, as I do, that the passing of the Act will give an impetus to that work. It will not suddenly happen in six months. All the seat belt manfufacturers are competing with each other for a better belt. We are all aware of the Birmingham experiments. Incidentally, I do not believe that the inertia belt is safer than the static belt. I believe that there is more likelihood of people wearing the inertia belts than the static ones and, therefore, the market is better for the inertia belt.
I hope that the House will come to a decision on the new clause with the proviso that I hope the Minister will make some sort of codicil to the regulations to allow some time between the laying and the passing of the regulations. I believe that six months would be too long and to insert that time limit into the Bill would be wrong.
I should like to refer to many other points that hon. Members have made, but the subject has been knocked about pretty well today. In fact, I wonder what else of relevance is left to discuss on the other amendments. None the less, having been in Committee with the hon. Member for Burton, I realise that that was a silly thing to say because I am sure that he will find something to say. I hope that the House will make a quick decision and then—

Mr. Body: In the discussions that the hon. Gentleman has had with seat belt manufacturers, has he received an assurance that they are in a position to supply the new sorts of seat belts for those who own elderly cars which are fitted with less satisfactory and less safe seat belts?

Mr. Carmichael: I have not had discussions with the manufacturers, for a number of reasons. I thought that it was better not to have too close an association with the manufacturers while the Bill was going through. However, I have read

widely on the subject and I have had the benefit of the experience of numerous hon. Members who have been in close touch with the manufacturers. I know that they are concerned with experiments and investigations that show faults in seat belt design, and they are doing everything possible to improve the design. There is competition among them to rectify the faults.
I hope that, having heard the Minister explain the position of the Department on the matter, the House will come to a quick decision on the new clause and progress to the fairly long list of selected amendments.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am glad to accept the invitation to make a brief intervention in the debate. Perhaps I should make clear the ministerial role in a debate of this sort on a Private Member's Bill. It is, as ever, to seek to spread enlightenment but, more specifically, to bring factual information to the House which might assist in reaching a decision and to give advice on any drafting problems that might arise in the enforcement of the legislation that the House is contemplating passing. Other than that, any personal views that might slip into my speeches are my own and any votes are my own and are not to be taken as an indication of Government policy. The Government are wholly neutral towards the Bill.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) asked whether I was paired with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the purpose of the debate on his new clause. We are not paired on a free vote but we have sought to achieve the balance which we try to achieve in the management of transport matters in the House. When the Second Reading was debated I was opening a road in Humberside and my right hon. Friend spoke in the debate. Today, my right hon. Friend has the honour of opening the Cambridge western bypass and I am here to answer my hon. and learned Friend's debate. One thing that I am sure of is that when my right hon. Friend takes the first ride along the new Cambridge western bypass he will be wearing his seat belt. From personal experience I know that he always does—as, indeed, do I.
My hon. Friend, the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made one particular remark in his speech that I endorse. Most of us in the House are agreed that, whatever the strong feelings one way or another about the issue of compulsion, a great increase in the wearing of seat belts by car drivers and front seat passengers would be a major contribution to road safety. I can think of nothing which would produce a more dramatic fall in the number of deaths and serious injuries on the road.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: A whole succession of Ministers in the Department have refused to grasp the nettle of the requirement for laminated glass windscreens rather than toughened ones. My hon. Friend is in no position to make the statement that he has just made unless he has conducted research in depth into the number of accidents, injuries and fatalities that would be saved by universalising laminated glass windscreens with high penetration resistance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that has nothing to do with this clause.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it was in order for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to express the view that no other measure would result in the same quantum of lives or accidents saved, it must be in order to ascertain whether he has done the necessary research to put forward that proposition to the House.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has brought in a note of controversy. I said that, whether voluntarily or compulsory, I trust that we are all agreed—I expect that he agrees as well—that an increase in the wearing of seat belts would be the biggest single factor that would improve road safety in this country. Whether it is voluntary or compulsory is a matter for the House and is the subject matter of the Bill.

Sir Ronald Bell: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is wrong in his assertion, as his Department's statistics show. Nothing brought about a greater reduction in fatalities and accidents than the 50 miles an hour speed limit which was imposed during the oil crisis. Any possible and arguable saving of accidents and fatalities by the wearing of seatbelts

would be mere chickenfeed. I hope my hon. Friend will bear in mind the magnitude of what we are talking about today, which is small in comparison.

Mr. Clarke: I am tempted to go into statistics which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would immediately point out would be better used in a Second Reading debate. While there was a drop in accident figures when the speed limit was reduced, there was a dramatic drop when the breathalyser laws were first brought into effect. Personally, I accept that there would be a substantial drop in deaths and personal injuries if seat belt wearing increased.
The Bill contemplates compulsion and is based on regulations being introduced by the Government. The new clause touches on the Government role of bringing in the regulations and moving towards enforcement of the law thereafter. The Government have an unenviable role in placing regulations before the House. It would be extremely difficult to put forward regulations—prescribing classes of vehicle, seating positions in vehicles and classes of persons—which would command widespread support.
For that reason, the Government have not at this stage brought forward any consultative document on regulations. We should wish to consult as widely as possible and would set out on this difficult task not only discussing them with the police, the motoring bodies, and so on, but trying to consult the general public in order to get as good a consensus as possible about those categories of people who should be exempted. Then the regulations would be placed before the House, and the first regulations would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, for the reasons given by my hon. and learned Friend.
I was also asked whether the decision on those regulations would itself be the subject matter of a free vote, I have no responsibility for these matters, of course. That would be decided at the time. But there is no party political or Government philosophy in this kind of measure, and I would be extremely surprised if any Government tried to impose any kind of Whip on their supporters when seeking approval of regulations of this kind. What is more, there would be little chance of many hon. Members taking much notice of any Whip imposed on


such regulations if the Government had failed to achieve the necessary consensus.

Mr. Matthew Parris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for repeating the assurance which he gave in Committee. Should the Bill become law, Britain will probably be the last, or perhaps the second last, member of the European Community to fall into line and to have legislation in respect of the compulsory wearing of seat belts. When we all have legislation. it will not be long before there is a European regime on the wearing of seat belts. It is an obvious candidate for that sort of regime.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please get to the point of his intervention?

Mr. Parris: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government Whip will also be withdrawn in the event of an order in respect of EEC regulations?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The problem of drafting the necessary British regulations is a daunting one, and I think that we would do better to cross that bridge before contemplating the even more daunting possibility of attempting to get a European directive accepted in this country.
The necessary delay for consultation, discussion and consideration of both categories of people and classes of vehicle that should be exempted would come before the regulations were made by this House, so all the arguments which have been directed to precisely what the exemptions should be are slightly beside the point. There would be no question of regulations being approved, I hope, until all those matters had been examined carefully.
There may be some case for a gap, following the regulations being made, before enforcement is brought in. Before attempting to enforce any kind of dramatic new traffic regulation, it is necessary that the public should have the widest possible understanding of the new obligations that Parliament has decided to impose upon them. The spirit of my hon. and learned Friend's clause has a lot to commend it, because it may be necessary to consider how best to phase in

the implementation of the new regulations.

Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend has touched upon a vital reason for supporting the new clause. Is not a further one the fact that at a time when, in traffic offences especially, relations between the police and the public may have become strained, it is vitally important that there should be time for the police to consider their position and how matters of this kind are to be enforced, if they ever are?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, because we would wish to consult the police especially about their judgment of the best way to implement any new regulations upon which this House decided.
Other countries have gone about it in slightly different ways. In France, there was a six-month period of consultation prior to the introduction of compulsion. That was followed by a two-month period in which the police warned but did not prosecute offenders. In Sweden, compulsion came after an extensive information campaign and, although there was no formal period of delay, during the initial stages the police tended to warn only. In Holland, there was an extensive publicity campaign prior to the introduction of compulsion, and in the following two months warnings only were given. In the Australian State of Victoria, six months before the introduction of compulsion extensive publicity was given to the new law in newspapers and editorials, and there was a short period of grace before full-scale enforcement.
Those examples illustrate various ways in which we might consider in this country how best to move from the enactment of regulations to their enforcement by the police against individual motorists. They show a wide variety of methods which might be adopted.
The Government would have to decide and the House would have to advise whether a period of publicity was adequate. There is quite a lot of information generally among the public already about the issues involved in the wearing of seat belts. We would have to decide whether a formal period of this kind was necessary and, if so, whether it should be six months or any other period, and whether the opinion of the police was that they


should begin normally by giving warnings and issue prosecutions only after a necessary period of months. But I ask the House to leave a certain flexibility in this because the Government would contemplate the problems, and I doubt whether a statutory six months would necessarily be required or necessarily be the advice and view of the police and others concerned.

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend did not mention Spain. The experience there was that they legislated and implemented it immediately, with the result that after a few weeks the police gave up entirely.

Mr. Clarke: I know from my hon. Friend's interest in this subject that there is no piece of information of which he would deprive the House. I am grateful for yet another piece. I hope that I have illustrated the variety of ways of going about it and the desire of the Government to consult the police and others

Division No. 193]
AYES
[12.17 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Newton, Tony


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Park, George


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Pavitt, Laurie


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Price, Christopher (Lewishem West)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Golding, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Goodhart, Philip
Rhodes James, Robert


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hannam, John
Richardson, Jo


Brooke, Hon Peter
Haynes, Frank
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Brown, Hugh 0. (Provan)
Heffer, Eric S.
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth. Vauxhall)
Rooker, J. W.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Huckfield, Les
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Canavan, Dennis
Janner, Hon Greville
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Sandelson, Neville


Carmichael, Nell
Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Chaiker, Mrs Lynda
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sheerman, Barry


Chapman, Sydney
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sims, Roger


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Loveridge, John
Soley, Clive


Cohen, Stanley
McCartney, Hugh
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Cook, Robin F.
McCrindle, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Corrie, John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stallard, A. W.


Cowans, Harry
MacGrego, John
Strang, Gavin


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Wellbeloved, James


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
McKelvey William
Welsh, Michael


Deakins, Eric
McNally, Thomas
Whitehead, Phillip


Dobson, Frank
Marks, Kenneth
Whitlock, William


Dormand, Jack
Mikardo, Ian
Wilkinson, John


Dubs, Alfred
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Dunnett, Jack
Mitcnell, Austin (Grimsby)



Dykes, Hugh
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Morton, George
Mr. George Robertson ant


Foulkes, George
Needham, Richard
Mr. Roger Moate


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Newens, Stanley





NOES


Banks, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marlow, Tony


Bell, Sir Ronald
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mather, Carol


Body, Richard
Grieve, Percy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Brotherton, Michael
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mellor, David


Buck, Antony
Henderson, Barry
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditche


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lawrence, Ivan
Molyneaux, James


English, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Nelson, Anthony


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Parris, Matthew

further about how best to implement any legislation.

For that reason, I shall vote against the new clause if it is pressed to a Division although it is not necessarily fatal to the Bill or to its proper implementation. The point is well taken, and I believe that if the House were to give a Second Reading to the clause and eventually approved regulations, it would be necessary to come to a decision about how to get proper acceptance by the public and implement the legislation in a fair and proper manner.

Mr. Marks: Mr. Marks rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes34.

Powell Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Winterton, Nicholas


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thompson, Donald



Rees-Davies, W. R.
Trippier, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Waller, Gary
Mr. George Robertson and


Stevens, Martin
Wheeler, John
Mr. Roger Moate.


Question accordingly agreed to.


Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—


The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 98.




Division No. 194]
AYES
[12.27 pm


Bell, Sir Ronald
Kerr, Russell
Proctor, K. Harvey


Berry, Hon Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Body, Richard
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Brotherton, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stevens, Martin


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Marlow, Tony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Cormack, Patrick
Mather, Carol
Thompson, Donald


Corrie, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Trippier, David


English, Michael
Mellor, David
Wakeham, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Waller, Gary


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Molyneaux, James
Wheeler, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Cheater)
Winterton, Nicholas


Grieve, Percy
Nelson, Anthony



Grimond, Rt Hon J,
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Henderson, Barry
Parris, Matthew
Sir Walter Clegg and


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Mr. Robert Atkins.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Newens, Stanley


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Newton, Tony


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Park, George


Banks, Robert
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Pavitt, Laurie


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Golding, John
Rees, Rt Hon Meriyn (Leeds South)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Goodhart, Philip
Rhodes James, Robert


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Hannam, John
Richardson, Jo


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Haynes, Frank
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Heffer, Eric S.
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Rooker, J. W.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Huckfield, Les
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Canavan, Dennis
Janner, Hon Greville
Sandelson, Neville


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sheerman, Barry


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Chapman, Sydney
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sims, Roger


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Loveridge, John
Soley, Clive


Cohen, Stanley
McCartney, Hugh
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Cook, Robin F.
McCrindle, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Cowans, Harry
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stainton, Keith


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
MacGregor, John
Stallard, A. W.


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Strang, Gavin


Deakins, Eric
McKelvey, William
Wellbeloved, James


Dobson, Frank
McNally, Thomas
Welsh, Michael


Dormand, Jack
Marks, Kenneth
Whitehead, Phillip


Dubs, Alfred
Mates, Michael
Whitlock, William


Dunnett, Jack
Mikardo, Ian
Wilkinson, John


Dykes, Hugh
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)



Faith, Mrs Sheila
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Foulkes, George
Morton, George
Sir Walter Clegg and


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Needham, Richard
Mr. Robert Atkins

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4

REPORT ON THE OPERATION OF THE ACT

'The Minister shall within two years of the coming into operation of this Act and thereafter annually lay before Parliament a report on the operation of the Act.'.—[Mr. Waller.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Gary Waller: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As I count myself among those who believe that politicians are too ready to govern human activity with more and more bureaucracy, it may be a little surprising that I should seek to impose upon


the Minister of Transport a duty to produce yet more pieces of paper. However, I hope that I shall be able to show that in seeking to put the Bill on the statute book its sponsors are embarking upon new ground which makes my additional requirement modest. I go further—the new clause is the least that might reasonably be expected.
Throughout the proceedings my hon. Friends and I have urged all mororists to heed the excellent arguments in favour of wearing seat belts. In the unfortunate event of being involved in a car accident, undoubtedly one gives oneself a better chance of escaping serious injury if one is belted up. However, we believe that individuals, possessed of the relevant facts, should be allowed to exercise responsibility for themselves in relation to a matter which primarily affects them. I suspect that I should be in harmony with the presenters of the Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Order. New clause 4 appears to deal with an annual report.

Mr. Waller: If I may continue, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will understand that I am speaking to new clause 4. I am in harmony with the presenters of the Bill if they feel that its success should be judged not by the number of prosecutions but by the way that it encourages a change of attitude towards seat belts. I fully accept that Parliament should endeavour to lead public opinion rather than be its slave. The new clause might be seen as a reasonable desire to assess whether the objective of leading public opinion has been attained.
In seeking to lead public opinion, one may become totally out of touch with it. There lies the danger. I wonder how many hon. Members have seriously sought to canvass opinion in their constituencies. If they have done so, they will have found that a high proportion have strong objections to this type of legislation.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Perhaps my hon. Friend would be interested to know that public opinion in my constituency is in the ratio of 80 against to 20 in favour. Perhaps that is a good reason for enacting the new clause. My hon. Friend is undertaking a public service in bringing it forward.

Mr. Carmichael: As a sponsor of the Bill, perhaps I can save the House time by saying that I am happy to accept the new clause. There is some validity and purpose to having statistics available after the Bill has been enacted.

Mr. Waller: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assurance. We seek to put an important clause in the Bill. I am seeking to make this a four-clause Bill. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that my speech will be briefer than others have been.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that different points of view are held in different parts of the country. We both represent constituencies in the North, where there is great resistance to the Bill. I spoke at a meeting of driving instructors that was held in my constituency. Eighteen instructors were present and all but two of them—without any prompting—declared themselves to be against the principle behind the Bill.
The new clause seeks information. Information would be helpful, because we often hear conflicting reports. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) mentioned a public opinion survey. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) mentioned another public opinion survey. One tends to listen to the public opinion survey that most supports one's case.

Mr. Lawrence: From my hon. Friend's knowledge and experience, can he tell us of any organisation that has sponsored a public opinion survey that has not come out in favour of the organisation's views?

Mr. Waller: That is an interesting point. The survey to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield referred was carried out by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. I have had access to that survey. It is carried out by an organisation for which the Ministry of Transport is responsible. It is therefore right to pay attention to that survey, as it is somewhat official. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield pointed out that the survey showed that 59 per cent. of the population were against the Bill. The survey asked,
Should all drivers be made to wear safety belts by law?


Nothing could be clearer than that. In reply, 59 per cent. said "No" and only 39 per cent. said "Yes". The organisers of the survey said that of the 1,400 drivers who were canvassed by post, 81 per cent. replied. That was a high response rate. The organisers said that it was a very good response for a postal survey. The survey is therefore fairly reputable.
Other surveys may produce slightly different results. However, a large proportion of the population—drivers in particular—are opposed to compulsion.
12.45 pm
I have had more limited discussions, but the majority in my area oppose the Bill. Those who are opposed to the legislation oppose it with greater conviction than those who accept it. The latter tend to do so with a certain amount of apathy. This legislation is out of touch with the views of many ordinary people. As a result, it is not only the law that is undermined but the basis of law in general. Ultimately, law depends on consent. Laws introduced without such consent will fail. Indeed, many have failed in the past. We should therefore know how the position will be altered if the Bill is passed. If the presenters of the Bill accept the clause, we shall be able to understand the position more easily.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about seat belts. In Committee there was much discussion about the different types of seat belt, such as static and inertia reel belts. We discussed the problems that certain groups of people experienced and the situations in which it would be unreasonable to expect seat belts to be worn. Such matters would be dealt with by the regulations laid down by the Minister of Transport. It would be helpful to have information about how the regulations had worked in practice. They may need to be amended after a period of time. That is another reason why I would welcome an annual report. I am happy that this new clause has already been accepted.
Whether or not the Bill is enacted, there is much to be said for the Minister producing a regular report on the use of seat belts and on technical aspects. That would provide the motorist with authoritative information. One of last week's Sunday newspapers revealed situations in

which seat belt buckles had failed. Such occasions may be rare, but the public are entitled to know the circumstances involved. On the front page of yesterday's Evening Standard there was a photograph of an overturned car. The passenger compartment had been completely crushed. The caption stated that the driver had been thrown into the road by the impact and had been taken to Edgware Hospital for X-ray examination. He was found to have escaped with cuts and bruises. That man was undoubtedly extremely lucky. In the majority of accidents, one stands a worse chance if one is thrown out of the vehicle. However, it would be better if people did not speculate upon such things in public bars throughout London, as they did last night. They may come to the wrong conclusion. Surely it would be preferable if the Minister produced information in a popular form, that we could all rely on. If such information does not come from the Ministry, someone may produce conflicting information. We shall not know who to believe.

Mr. Body: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the period of time stipulated in the new clause? Will it allow Ministry officials to conduct an inquiry similar to the one the report of which was published in the middle of last year? Would he not agree that a longer period than two years might be advisable?

Mr. Waller: The new clause stipulates a period of two years from the point at which the Bill comes into force. After the Bill is enacted, there will presumably be a period before it is enforced. I think that all hon. Members will accept that point. In those circumstances, I do not think that two years is too short a period. I suggested two years rather than one year, and an annual report after the first one. It is so that we should have a reasonable period before trying to assess the new situation that I have suggested a period of two years in the first instance.
There are some cases, however rare, in which people have been worse off wearing a belt. It is conceivable that the passing of the Bill could cause some deaths, in the way that the hon. Members for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) and Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) have suggested in their references to fire and to vehicles falling into water. I think that there would probably be more lives


saved, but surely we should not deal with that aspect as if it were just a balance sheet. The only safe solution is to give people information, as I propose, and let them make up their own minds.
I would have no objection to regulations requiring that babies and small children should be restrained in vehicles. Children often need protecting by law from unthinking adults, but adults have a right to make up their own minds. Ironically, one of the exemptions that the Minister would presumably have to make under the Bill are children of such an age that they cannot safely use conventional seat belts.
I am sorry to say that there have been cases, about which the Committee was told, where drivers have attempted to fasten a seat belt when a vehicle was in motion and the resulting lack of control has caused an accident. A report from the Minister could explain what a dangerous practice that is, so that drivers would avoid it in future. The need for publicity and education would not become any less with the passing of the Bill. Indeed it might become greater. One notices immediately how little the Bill says. The key words are:
The Minister of Transport may make regulations".
That is not quite a blank cheque, because the Minister will have to obtain Parliament's assent, presumably by means of the affirmative resolution procedure, but many of us are not happy, to say the least, at the prospect of precise details being dealt with either late at night, when many hon. Members would be absent, or upstairs in Committee. That is another reason for having a regular report.
The Minister is likely from time to time to want to alter the regulations, and it would be vital for Parliament to have information on which to work. Without that, the number of hon. Members participating in these important decisions might be even smaller than it would otherwise be.
I imagine that some regulations would relate to the construction and use regulations involving categories of vehicles to which seat belts must be fitted and the positioning of seat belts. At present, anchorages must be fitted in the rear of

cars, but seat belts do not need to be fitted. Perhaps they will have to be fitted some time in the future and, by reference to the construction and use regulations, it may automatically become compulsory to wear one.
I understand that the construction and use regulations are normally subject only to the negative resolution procedure, so the safeguards may be even less. It is a great pity that such important legislation could be put on the statute book with Parliament knowing so little about what is involved. Perhaps some other hon. Member can point to other legislation which says so little but means so much. I cannot think of any.
If Parliament is jealous of its powers it should not give so much away to any Minister. The new clause at least requires that the Minister shall have a duty to keep Parliament informed and surely that must be a good thing in all circumstances.
There remains the important matter of enforcement, which was dealt with only briefly in Committee, but which would obviously be an essential part of any report to Parliament. When we discussed inertia reel and static seat belts in Committee, I mentioned that where seat belt wearing is compulsory drivers often drape their belt, especially a static belt, over their shoulder to give the impression that it is being used. One of my hon. Friends intervened to point out that that was the practice of a close relative of his who was spending some time in Spain where the wearing of seat belts is compulsory.
There is no doubt that enforcement presents particular problems and the police have serious doubts about the ability to enforce the law while retaining good relations with the general public. I am not saying that all police officers have doubts. Some are happy, but others have doubts and individual policemen often express such doubts.
Chief constables are divided in the orders that they give to their officers. Some require the wearing of belts in most circumstances while others do not. If the Bill becomes law it would obviously be undesirable for the police not to set an example and we would therefore be imposing on chief constables something which many of them presumably oppose.
It would be interesting to hear how the Act has operated, what degree of enforcement was involved and whether the police had come to accept the new situation. That is another good reason for an annual report.
It may be thought that the Bill is not of particularly great moment. After all, it is being considered on a Friday and is not a Government Bill. Some people may not regard the change that is advocated as significant, but from my limited experience in the House it seems that Friday is becoming the day when we deal with legislation about which there is as much concern as any outside the House.
If the Bill becomes law, it will affect everyone who drives or rides in a car every day that he does so. Few will note the distinction between Government legislation and a Private Member's Bill. I am afraid that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport would be seen for ever as the man who presided over the introduction of compulsion in the wearing of seat belts.

Mr. Moate: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that it would be better if this were a Government Bill and were dealt with in Government time?

Mr. Waller: I am not suggesting anything of the sort and I do not know how my hon. Friend could have come to such a conclusion.
Many people outside will have difficulty in distinguishing a Private Member's Bill from Government legislation. I am happy to say to my right hon. Friend, who is perhaps opening that new bypass at this moment, that he need not worry too much about a graffito appearing on a bridge over that motorway saying "Fowler must go", because we hope to defeat the Bill.
The new clause deals with an important matter, especially in view of the little information that we have before us. It is vital that if the Bill becomes law we should have as much information as possible at a later date.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I support the new clause. One of the problems facing us is that circumstances are changing daily with regard to road vehicles. Some time ago I visited the motor industry's research establishment at Nuneaton, where I was

told that work had been taking place for some years on the development of a new seat belt which would make it impossible for a car to be driven unless the belt was being worn.
I thought that it seemed a good idea. It would meet the fear of some people, to which the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) referred, of being locked in their car, because once the seat belt was released the car door would be unlocked.
If the industry perfects that new belt, everyone may have to wear it. The Government always talk about saving expenditure—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking to a new clause that deals with an annual report.

Mr. Lewis: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assume that if the Nuneaton research establishment perfected a new seat belt that is the sort of information that would be included in the report proposed by the new clause. If it were reported to the Minister I assume that the Minister would say that the belt was an improvement on all previous types and should be introduced. If it had to be introduced on all vehicles it would involve a great deal of expenditure. Everyone would have to change to the new belt. Yet we have a Government who talk about saving expenditure.
Public vehicles would be involved. Ministers' own cars would be affected. I would welcome such a report. But it would be contrary to the Government's philosophy.

1 pm

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about a new development that was brought to his notice when he visited the motor industry research establishment at Nuneaton. The hon. Gentleman said that this development would be welcomed and highlighted in any report to the Minister and through the Minister to this House and the people of this country. The hon. Gentleman welcomed the link between the opening of the car door and the wearing of the seat belt. What would happen if one stuck and a person was unable either to get the belt undone or the door open? That would be a worse situation


than exists at present. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the number of instances on which this unfortunate experience occurred should be reported to the Minister and through the Minister, to the House?

Mr. Lewis: I agree. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to me instead of talking to his hon. Friends he would have heard me say that I assumed that this would eventually prove successful and that none of the unfortunate eventualities that the hon. Gentleman has described would happen. It would be proved perfect. The Minister would not accept it unless the report stated that it was completely satisfactory.
Other reports could be provided under the new clause. It is indisputable today that the police are undermanned and overstretched. It is impossible for them to carry out their normal criminal duties—

Mr. Marks: I am sure my hon. Friend means anti-criminal.

Mr. Lewis: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I cannot get, in my constituency, policemen on the beat. There is vandalism. Old people have been knocked down. The police might say that they cannot enforce the seatbelts law because they are over-stretched and under-manned They will say that they have to cope with vandals, muggers, football crowds, pickets and wedding parties.

Mr. Body: The hon. Gentleman represents an urban seat with streets marked with double yellow lines to prevent parking. It is difficult for the police, with their existing manpower, to enforce the regulations. As a result, this has become an optional law in many urban areas. Some hon. Members, who object to this Bill, fear that the same thing will happen over seat belts.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has stolen my thunder. That was in my line of vision. I shall deal with it now. It is not only a question of motorists parking on double and, in some cases, treble yellow lines where the police ask what they can do when so many people are involved. The police argue that if such parking offences are reported, there are so many cases in court—this is relevant to the report—that the courts cannot deal with them. If the hon. Gentleman is

interested in this matter he should go to Mecklenburgh Square, where he will see a car with about 55 parking tickets stuck on the windscreen.
I could perhaps take the Minister there one day. I spoke to the driver one day and asked him why there were so many parking tickets on the windscreen. He replied "I leave them on there to show how stupid it is". He claimed that no one ever worried. He had been told to go to court but had not turned up. Nothing happened. He was fined but never paid.
I, therefore, put down a question in the House to ask how many fines were outstanding. Do you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there are about £10 million-worth outstanding? When one asks how long this has been happening, one is told that the answer cannot be found. The reason that the answer cannot be found is that those responsible do not want to find it. If there was a report, some research could be carried out.
The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) talks about parking. He would not have to go far to see what is happening. There are parking bays for disabled people. The hon. Gentleman would be surprised to find the number of people who are not disabled who park in those bays. The hon. Gentleman need only to go to Star Court, where there are seven reserved spaces, and see how many are occupied by people who are not Members of Parliament. The police do not take any action. I am not blaming the police. They have more important work to do. But this is another issue on which a report would be useful.
The police are to be one of the exempted classes.

Mr. Waller: indicated dissent.

Mr. Lewis: They can apply.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We have not decided any exemptions. I think that many policemen and senior officers would be reluctant to seek exemption from a Bill when they have to enforce this provision against members of the public. I know that some who represent the police want an exemption. Opinion is divided within the police force.

Mr. Lewis: I shall not argue with the Minister. I happen to park my car in


Old Scotland Yard—the Norman Shaw building—where I have an office. Hon. Members should count the number of cars in which police are voluntarily wearing seat belts. This is a case where there could be a report. Hon. Members might be able to give the Minister a report showing how many police officers are using seat belts. They will be lucky if they find one in 10. I do not complain. It is up to them.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am not sure that the Metropolitan Police are responsible for the parking in Star Court. I believe that that is the responsibility of either the Lord Chancellor or Mr. Speaker and the officials of the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that. Does he not agree that it is extraordinary that it should have just come to light from the intervention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government would appear, despite the late stage of this Bill, not yet to have given consideration to those groups of people who might or might not be exempted?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If progress is made there will be the opportunity for a great many exemptions to be discussed in detail. We should now confine ourselves to the new clause.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that the report to which my hon. Friend referred should be laid before the House every year, should include the details of those who have been granted exemptions, the reasons why, and details of requests that have been submitted?

Mr. Lewis: Perhaps for the purposes of this debate I may refer to the hon. Gentleman as my hon. Friend, because we are hon. Friends on this issue. I was not seeking to blame anyone about parking in the Palace of Westminister. My point is simply that that sort of thing happens, both here in the Palace of West-minister and in the streets of London. People simply ignore the rules and regulations.
For 15 years I conducted a single-handed battle against the evasion of road tax. When I first raised the matter with a Labour Minister I was told that only a few people were guilty. The number

increased and Ministers agreed that the problem was getting out of hand. It is now completely out of hand. About 20 per cent. of motorists in London are driving without road tax.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I can give the hon. Gentleman good news. We are beginning to take steps to tighten up on this problem—

Mr. Lewis: After all these years?

Mr. Clarke: We have been in office only since last May and we are now proposing to tighten up on the widespread evasion of road tax to which the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention. We are to consult about ways of making it easier to enforce the road tax provisions and to improve the display of road fund licences. We have announced a campaign in Nottingham, where there will be a drive to bring proceedings against those who are not paying their road tax. We hope that the publicity for that campaign will induce a large number of people to pay their road tax without the need for enforcement proceedings.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) will not pursue that matter. It hardly comes within the sphere of a report about seat belts.

Mr. Lewis: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe that it does. The Minister is right. He now tells me that after 15 years of campaigning by me, the Government are to take action.
There should be an annual report, because it will enable me to recall when the report comes before us for debate, that on 22 February 1980—the day after my birthday; I should hardly forget that—the Minister said that the Government were to deal with road tax evasion. I shall be able to say that they have not dealt with it and point out that if that problem cannot be tackled there is little chance of dealing satisfactorily with the problem of seat belts.
1.15 pm
It is necessary to have an annual report. Let it deal with the rumours that we heard many years ago that a Minister was connected indirectly with Kangol seat belts and that he was interested in getting seat belts—

Mr. Barry Sheerman: If my hon. Friend wants to mention dubious activity by any hon. Member, should he not turn his attention to the activities of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and the other hon. Members who have been trying today to talk out the Bill. Their activities have been an absolute disgrace and they have brought the House into disrepute—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: This is disgraceful.

Mr. Sheerman: The people want us to vote on this issue.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is quite wrongly, because if he attempted to do to realise that no hon. Member can act wrongly because if he attempted to do so the Chair would bring him to order. As soon as I slide a little over the red line, Mr. Deputy Speaker pulls me up.

Mr. Body: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) referred to Kangol in somewhat disparaging terms—

Mr. Lewis: No, no.

Mr. Body: Has the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to study the report by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory in which it examined different kinds of seat belts, three manufactured by Britax and three by Kangol? The belts are the Britax Autolok Mk. III, the Britax Autolok Mk. IIIA, the Britax Surelok, the Kangol Reflex, the Kangol Euroflex and the Kangol Series 12. According to the report, the Kangol belts come out slightly better, so if the hon. Gentleman is critical of any manufacturer, perhaps it would be right for him to criticise Britax instead.

Mr. Lewis: I did not seek to cast aspersions on Kangol. I said only that there were rumours years ago that a certain person was associated with Kangol and that he wanted legislation on seat belts. If the proposal now before us were accepted we could deal with that sort of issue. It would enable us to determine whether Kangol was better than Britax, or even whether a Russian seat belt, for example, might be the best of all. I know that that is a terrible thing to say, given the trouble in Afghanistan. I am told that one of the toughest and most secure cars on the road is a Moskvitch. If a Moskvitch

owner told me that the seat belts in it were better than Britax, Kangol or any other make, I could raise that matter with the Minister when the report came before us for debate.
There will be exemptions, and I should think that the police will be among the first to apply for them. Without an annual report and a debate upon it, I should be unable to determine whether they had so applied. Other people may also apply. Many people wear pacemakers. One such person might go to his doctor and ask for an exemption on the ground that the belt would interfere with the device. The doctor might agree. Another such person might go to another doctor and draw the opposite response. The debate on the report would enable us to see whether such anomalies were arising.

Mr. Grieve: For that reason does the hon. Member not accept that it is essential that, if there is to be a medical judgment on whether exemptions should be granted, there should be an appellate procedure in respect of that judgment?

Mr. Lewis: I am much obliged. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree, however, that if I were to discuss an appellate procedure on this clause I should be out of order. But what I can say within the bounds of order at this point is that if we had a system of reports we could debate on each report such suggestions as the hon. and learned Gentleman has made, among others. This arises not only on the medical side. One could give a hundred and one reasons showing why the list of exemptions should be extended or reduced.
I support the new clause, since it raises a matter of principle, apart from anything else. We should be as open as we can and have as much information as possible. Statistics and figures are trotted out by all Departments under all Governments, and from one month to the next they contradict themselves. I said a little earlier that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) had not been here long enough fully to understand our procedures. I have been here too long. I know what happens. Every six months we get a report from the Treasury saying that it has things right, although it is doing the opposite of what it told us six months previously. How


many times do we find that the Treasury gets things wrong?
I could go on all day, if necessary, reminding the House of the way in which Government Departments get things wrong. What about the Crown Agents for the Colonies? They got it wrong, but no one knew. We were not allowed to know until the affair was all over. Hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money were involved.
What about the Swansea centre? I believe that the estimate was £4 million, but the ultimate cost was £40 million, and now it is being shut down. We were told that the system there was essential, but everyone knows that it was a flop and a waste of time and money. I am not blaming the Minister personally, because it was done under another Government.
If we had reports as proposed in the clause, we could ask why things were not as we had been led to believe. We have been told that if everyone wore a seat belt there would be no serious accidents, the number of deaths would fall, and so on. We could find out that that was not so and examine the reasons why.
We ought to have as much information as possible, not only for the purpose covered by the clause but for everything else. Why should we not have as much information as possible to allow us to make up our minds?
The Parliamentary Secretary was probably out of the Chamber at the time when the point was raised, but he is a member of the legal profession and will know that learned judges disagree with one another. I shall not cite recent cases, but we all remember occasions when one legal luminary said that the result of a case should be one thing and the next week another legal luminary said that he had got it absolutely wrong and the case went to the House of Lords.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend—if I may so call the hon. Gentleman on this occasion—has spoken of the importance of our having these reports brought before Parliament so that we may look into the progress of the Bill, if it is enacted. There are two aspects which I should like him to develop as he continues his argument. I have to say that

I have not as yet received any satisfactory information from the Ministry on them.
First, we have no information on the incidence of accidents among those who wear seat belts as opposed to those who do not. I think it at least possible that the wearing of a seat belt can cause an accident, especially if it is uncomfortable or is the sort of belt which we know as the fixed lap and diagonal belt, not the inertia reel belt. It may be that at a crucial moment someone is struggling with the controls, perhaps trying to switch on the lights and not being able to reach the switch, thus giving rise to an accident.
I should like my hon. Friend—

Mr. Lewis: Not "my hon. Friend".

Mr. Marlow: I think that on this occasion the hon. Gentleman will be happy to accept that appellation—and perhaps on others later, too. I should like him to develop his argument on that matter.
The second matter about which no research has been done arises in this way. It is closely relevant to the new clause, which I regard as one of the most important matters coming before us. I refer to the circumstances of driving down a motorway. Sometimes people become tired in such a situation. If a driver is feeling somewhat soporific—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Getleman intending to make a speech or is this an intervention?

Mr. Marlow: I was hoping to come to a swift conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the circumstances which I have described, a lot of people will find that if they undo the seat belt—which they would not be allowed to do under the Bill—they will in some way feel more lively, thus becoming more awake and better able to drive their vehicle safely.

Mr. Lewis: Before I reply, may I add a further comment in connection with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman), who has now left the Chamber. I think that it has relevance at this point. It is the Chair who keeps order. Until the Chair stops an hon. Member—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was not here when I replied on


that matter to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East, so I wish that he would keep quiet. If he wants to intervene, I shall give way to him. Hon. Members who were present know the point, and I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker accepts that it was relevant.

Mr. George Robertson: One is becoming increasingly disturbed about this so-called debate. My hon. Friend is quite right to assume that others wish to intervene. There are hon. Members who want to take part in a debate, but if we are to have speeches as long as those delivered by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and now by my hon. Friend himself, very few others will be able to contribute to the discussion.

Mr. Lewis: I wish that my hon. Friend had been here, or had paid more attention if he was, when my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East made much the same comment on a point of order. I had to tell him, with all respect —knowing that he is a new Member—that he does not understand our procedures as well as he should. Neither does my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), with respect. No one is out of order unless the Chair says so. If an hon. Member wants to start teaching his grandmother how to suck eggs, he ought to learn the rules first. It is the occupant of the Chair who controls these matters. No hon. Member has been out of order. If anyone goes out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker immediately pulls him up, as we have recently seen. So I ask my hon. Friend not to say that any hon. Member has been out of order.

Mr. George Robertson: I did not say that.

Mr. Lewis: All right. As soon as I go out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker will pull me up. I have to give way to him, he tells me where I have gone wrong, and I have to come back into order. Therefore, it should not be imagined that hon. Members who have spoken for an hour or an hour and a half have been out of order. There has been nothing of the kind.
I have now forgotten the question which the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) put to me.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is probably right on the question of order, but his speech has not added much to the debate and many hon. Members do not particularly want to go on listening to him.

Mr. Lewis: This is a democratic assembly. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, as I am entitled to mine. I am entitled to express it, and that is what I am doing. He may not like it, just as I may not like his view, but that is what democracy is all about.
I have now remembered the points raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, North.

Mr. Carmichael: Although I acknowledge my hon. Friend's right to talk—and I always enjoy listening to him—I hope that he will realise that I have already accepted the new clause. Although he is in order in what he is saying, since the Chair is in control of the debate, would it not facilitate progress if my hon. Friend made some of his remarks on one of the later amendments? With his ingenuity and long experience in the House, he could relate the same remarks to a number of other amendments.

Mr. Lewis: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I also like to listen to his voice, with his Scottish accent. I enjoy hearing his advice. As he knows, I accept the new clause and I want to give my reasons for accepting it.
There are two reasons why I do not wish to finish my speech now. The other amendments may not be reached, or if they are reached, I may not be here [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] There are many reasons why I may not be here. Therefore, I want to say now why I accept the new clause even though I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) has accepted it. I believe that the amendment is a good amendment. Why then was it not included in the Bill originally?
I am against the concept of the Bill, because it takes away the liberty of the individual. I may be wrong, but nevertheless I am entitled to express my views. If I feel that the liberty of the individual is being taken away, I am entitled to say


so. If I think that the new clause will restore some of that liberty, again I am entitled to say so.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Lewis: I shall give way in a moment.
I have no objection to any legislation, provided that it does not harm people and prevent them from doing things that do not cause harm or suffering to others.
If we are to introduce legislation, say, to prevent people from keeping a dog why should I agree to that? I am not entitled to do so. I am entitled to say that if the dog bites someone there should be legislation to prevent a person from keeping that dog. I am entitled to say that it is wrong to tell people that they must do something simply because it is good for them.
I am in favour of seat belts being worn. I am in favour of the police wearing seat belts, and setting an example. I am in favour of Ministers doing so. When they were not Ministers they did not do so, but now that they are Ministers they are doing so. I am not in favour of telling any man that he must do something because I think that it is good for him. I do not think that it is right for me to tell people that they should eat a big steak because it makes them good, fat and strong like me. Why should I?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is as willing as ever to give way to interventions. I hope that he is not trying to suggest that my right hon. Friend and I have worn seat belts only since we became Ministers. I have worn my seat belt for as long as I have been driving. I believe that most people with any common sense wear seat belts, whatever their job.

Mr. Lewis: If the Minister thought that I had referred to him personally, he is wrong. I did not. But if he thought so, I withdraw my remarks. I said that there are Ministers who, when they were not Ministers, did not wear seat belts. My remarks were directed towards both major parties and, indeed, to some members of the Liberal Party. I do not blame them. They are entitled to please them-

selves. I am worried. I tried to persuade my wife to wear a seat belt. She said that she does not want to do so, because of claustrophobia, and because she is scared that she will be locked in the car if there is a fire.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Lewis: I shall give way in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) must learn that an hon. Member gives way when he wants to do so. I shall give way in my own time. I was referring to the interjection of the hon. Member for Northampton, North—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Lewis: I give way.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would not the hon. Member accept, in the light of his statement, that this is a free and democratic assembly? But the House and the country have to take decisions. The public expect Parliament in its wisdom, to draw conclusions and to make decisions. While this filibuster continues it firmly discredits the House. Everyone watching and listening to the debate will wonder what we do in Parliament. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen to allow the House to take decisions now so that the country can see the wisdom of parliament.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. When the Chair rises the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I apologise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have only just taken the Chair. I have no reason to suspect, either from the previous occupant of the Chair or anyone else, that filibustering has been taking place. As soon as I think that there is filibustering I shall intervene. I understand that there have been indications that the new clause will be accepted. I must take that into account in deciding how much debate I shall allow on it.

Mr. Lewis: I am very glad that you said that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I said exactly the same as you have just said when the previous occupant of the Chair was here. If my hon. Friend the Member


for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) had been here, he would have heard me say it. No one can filibuster in this House. I wish that my hon. Friend would learn the rules. Let him learn to sit down when Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker rises. Let him learn that he cannot keep making sedentary interventions. Let him learn that an hon. Member cannot be out of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair appreciates any protection, but I think that it will need some protection from the hon. Gentleman in a few moments.

Mr. Lewis: I am much obliged for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to say that until you rise I am in order.
I return to the question of reporting. It is essential that we have reports on a number of matters, because we have not yet perfected the proper type of seat belt. There are dangers in some seat belts. People need to be able to make up their minds. Here I deal with the valid part of my hon. Friend's intervention, about the people outside. They have not yet had an opportunity to know whether they will be harmed when the wearing of seat belts is made compulsory.
New clause 2 provided for a six-month delay in the implementation of regulations. If there were a report the public could ask for the facts and details. I am not in favour of loaded statistics and loaded reports. Every hon. Member contacts his constituents in one way or another. While our constituents may not put the point succinctly or clearly, we often say "I wish to God you had told me that before. You have hit the nail on the head. This is far better than the Civil Service jargon." Very often hon. Members say "I shall make that point when the report comes up for debate", because it was not generally understood.
I have heard from my hon. Friend the sponsor of the Bill that he will accept the clause, and I now hear that the Minister also agrees to it. We are making progress.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the clause is good because of the lack of preparedness and the paucity of information and research? I come to this

debate relatively fresh, but I think that on the matter of the cost of implementing the Bill and the manpower needed to enforce it, which we shall discuss later, there has not been enough research. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me about the desirability of the clause for that reason?

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is right. He will find that I am not a friend of the Ministry of Transport or the Department of the Environment—DoE, which is a very appropriate name for it. It is the most maladministered and neglected Department that I know. It is strange that two of the main sponsors of the Bill were in that Department. I know that they have had the Bill pigeonholed for a long time. All that time no one, including the present Minister, has done enough research. Let us have some research.
Yesterday I received a letter from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, including words to the effect "in view of your support of this Bill". It should have had a look at the records. I spoke on the original Bill about 10 year ago and was violently against it. Now RoSPA writes to me saying that it is glad that I am in favour. Then it gives all the facts and figures to show why this is a good Bill. It does not even know who is for it and who is against it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman relate this matter to new clause 4?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because one of the bodies to make a report might be RoSPA. It might give us the facts, and it might check up first, so that when it writes to an hon. Member who started the opposition to the Bill it does not thank him for supporting the Bill.

Mr. George Robertson: While my hon. Friend is checking records, will he also check on his own and see whether he voted for the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which actually introduced this concept?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have enough to do today without going into safety regulations. That cannot be in order on this clause. It may be in order later in the Bill.

Mr. Lewis: I was about to say that in that report there might be information about how far this matter would be relevant, but I would be out of order. New Members should really—

Mr. Robertson: I am not a new Member.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton is a new Member. It is not until one has been in the House for 25 years that one is even recognised, so we are all new Members to that extent. However, I did not mean to be rude or offensive. Let us try to get this into perspective. We must have a proper system for checking, and the Ministry of Transport is the worst of the lot in this matter. My record can be traced back to the days of Alf Barnes, if anyone ever remembers Alf Barnes.
Through the new clause we will have an opportunity to make a check and discover whether seat belts are in order, are good belts or are the right ones. We do not know about the manufacture of them. There might be something wrong with the manufacturing of them. Checking this would be possible if there was a report. Therefore, I support the new clause.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). He has given some valuable information to the House. He is well known to the House and the country for campaigning for freedom of information. He is therefore well qualified to speak from the Opposition Benches on this new clause.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) on introducing the clause. It is strange that on Report both the Government and the original sponsor of the Bill should say that they accept it. If they believe it is so important to have the clause in the Bill, why was it not in the original Bill? To some extent that clearly indicates that this sort of debate on Report is valuable. Unfortunately, the House has a bad reputation because of the badly drafted legislation that it has passed—not least the trade union and labour relations legislation of 1974 and 1976, which has caused many of the problems that face us today.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough on the extremely articulate and detailed case that he presented to the House. My hon. Friend left the sponsor of the Bill with no alternative but to accept the clause. The responsible nature of the new clause, and the additional information that it solicits for the House and for the people of this country, will be beneficial should this misconceived piece of legislation ever reach the statute book.
It was a great shame that the hon Member for Newham, North-West was attacked so viciously and unjustifiably by one of his hon. Friends. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not consider it out of order if I ask whether some of those who have attacked hon. Members on both the Government and Opposition Benches who seek to question this legislation remember how they be haved during the earlier stages of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. I wonder whether those who have sought to accuse both Government and Opposition Members of delaying tactics themselves participated in delaying tactics on that Bill.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Winterton: I am not giving way.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Then why make accusations?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should realise that he must ask to intervene. He cannot just start shouting across the Chamber.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will not give way at this stage because I was making no specific accusations. I was putting a rhetorical question, and if there are Opposition Members who feel guilty, so be it. If they are innocent, so be it also.
1.45 pm
I say to my hon. Friend—this is where I may part company with him—that I am not so sure that it should not be within a year of the Act coming into operation that a report should be made. I believe that the House should be kept very much up to date with the progress of this legislation should it, by some mischance, reach the statute book. I intend to give my reasons for that belief.
I come, first, to types of accidents. It was interesting that two Opposition Members raised the problem of how those who were forced to wear a seat belt would react and might be restricted in the action that they could take in the event of the vehicle in which they were travelling catching fire. That is a very important question. It has not been answered adequately. Likewise, there are the dangers that might be experienced by someone compulsorily wearing a seat belt when his car plunges into water, be it a fast-flowing river, a lake or whatever, and how he would be affected.
The report could very clearly document such matters. Obviously, police forces would feed information into the Ministry of Transport, and in due course the Minister could present a full report to the House. He could indicate the number of accidents that had occurred in which cars had caught fire when the occupants, particularly the driver and front seat passenger, were forced to wear a seat belt and had been killed, and the incidents in which they had escaped; and likewise, where a vehicle fell into or ran into water, again with statistics showing whether people had been trapped and could not get out of the vehicle because of their seat belts, and where, fortunately, they were able to escape.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My hon. Friend is voicing some very popular fears about seat belt wearing when he talks about vehicles catching fire or plunging into water. I suggest that the report about which we are talking might reveal that wearing a set belt greatly reduces the incidence of concussion and serious injury, and that if drivers are concussed or seriously injured in an accident, it is that which is most likely to prevent them getting out of a vehicle in the case of fire or going into water. It may well turn out to be a popular myth that somehow one is better prepared for a really serious accident in which fire might ensue by driving along happily not wearing a seat belt, believing that one will be able to jump out if one has a serious accident.

Mr. Winterton: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the view that he expressed. He made his view clear in an earlier intervention on a new clause—which unfortunately and incorrectly, I

think, and sadly, was not passed. His view was that he was basically behind this legislation and that he personally wore a seat belt. He has every right to express his view, although the Government are not taking sides.
I have been consistently against the compulsory wearing of seat belts and against any such legislation. However, like many hon. Members, I believe that we should certainly encourage people to wear seat belts and, if necessary, have an insurance waiver in favour of those who wear seat belts, rather than taking a negative line on insurance. Every encouragement should be given to having the advantages and benefits of wearing seat belts explained.
I should like to relate two personal incidents. The first was when I was travelling home on a Sunday morning, shortly after the 1970 general election, from a civic service in Coleshill, in Warwickshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), now the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, who was then the hon. Member for Meriden, was also in attendance at the service. I was involved in a very serious motor accident, in which I was a completely innocent party. A heavy vehicle coming from Manchester to Abingdon market to collect strawberries on a Sunday to take back to the early market in Manchester for the Monday morning came around a sharp corner on the A446. It was coming too fast and the driver braked suddenly so that he was unable to control the vehicle. It came across the road and took away the whole driver's side of my vehicle. If I had been wearing a seat belt I would have been unable to throw myself laterally into the passenger seat of the car, onto my wife who was sitting on that seat. I should have been restricted by my static seat belt.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman a great deal of latitude. We are discussing what would be contained in a report. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said for the last 10 minutes would not have been said by him in a Second Reading debate as to whether or not we should wear seat belts. If he is going to give instances, I hope that he will not go into individual cases but will state what he thinks the report should include.

Mr. Winterton: Obviously, I shall heed your advice and instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall bring the story to a quick end as you do not wish Members to be specific. However, this is the sort of incident upon which information should be contained in the report to indicate how effective or otherwise the Bill will be if it becomes an Act.

Mr. Marks: rose—

Mr. Winterton: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I shall just conclude this matter. If I had not been able to throw myself into the passenger side of the car because I had been wearing a seat belt, I would have been seriously injured or killed. Therefore, there are a number of instances where the wearing of a seat belt can be a sentence of death. In any monitoring of the effect of the Bill, the sort of tale that I have related—a true story in which I was involved—should be included in the statistics in the report that my hon. Friend wishes the Minister to present to the House on an annual basis.

Mr. Marks: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has a pyschological problem about putting on a seat belt. However, he started by saying that he would urge people to wear seat belts and he accepted that insurance companies should charge a lower premium for those who regularly wear them.

Mr. Winterton: Indeed, I did say that and I need make no further comment. However, statistics need to be included in the report, which does not necessarily show that the wearing of seat belts is always an advantage. It is a valid point that should be included in the report.

Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. Friend feel that it is important for the report that will be produced to the House on regular occasions to contain evidence about the incidence of accidents among those wearing seat belts and those not wearing seat belts? We do not have that information at the moment. It is possible for seat belts to cause accidents in three ways: first, by someone not releasing his belt through tiredness, secondly, by being unable to control the vehicle and, thirdly, because some people may feel that because they are wearing seat belts

they are safer and, therefore they drive more rapidly and dangerously and cause an accident in that way. Will my hon. Friend comment on that matter? I believe that it is one of the vital ingredients that should be contained in the report.

Mr. Winterton: I am happy to respond to my hon. Friend. On the first question that he put to me as to whether the report should contain statistics and details of both those wearing seat belts and those not wearing them who are injured and severely maimed in accidents, I believe that that is just the sort of information that should be contained in the report. The other point is also a valid one. People could have a sense of false security from wearing a seat belt and believe that it enabled them to drive faster and more recklessly without danger. However, that is merely a personal opinion, and I have no doubt that hon. Members will have differing points of view.
The report should also contain details of the various types of seat belts fitted to vehicles which are involved in accidents. The number of accidents in which people are severely injured when wearing static belts should be included in the statistics. Likewise, the number of accidents in which people are severely injured or killed when wearing inertia reel belts should also be in the report.
I suggest also that the reports should give details of the number of accidents in which people are severely injured or killed because of the faulty operation of their belts or because their belts refused to loose themselves when the people concerned attempted to release them. All these statistics are very important.
I move on to the enforcement issue. In this connection, considerable information should be provided in the proposed report. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said so cogently, our hard-pressed police are already unable, even with the assistance of traffic wardens, adequately to deal with parking offences. The number of occasions when traffic in London and other big cities cannot flow freely because of illegal parking is such that it seems a little strange to foist upon the police an additional responsibility. I agree that some police officers would welcome this measure, but many others would not.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I have been told by a deputy commissioner of police at Scotland Yard that there are more than 2,000 rules and regulations affecting vehicles on the roads and that no policeman in the country could tell an inquirer half of them. How can a policeman enforce them if he does not even know them? Yet now we contemplate adding another bunch. It is ridiculous.

Mr. Winterton: I do not think that I need respond to that intervention, save to say that the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to an important and valid argument.
If we are to pass legislation, it must be enforceable, otherwise it is useless, and this House will do itself and the country no service by putting it on the statute book.

Mr. Marlow: I appreciate my hon. Friend's tolerance in giving way yet again. Can he say how the enforcement should take place? Would a police officer look to see whether someone had a strap over his shoulder, bearing in mind that some seat belts are worn only round the waist? Should we, have the random stopping of cars in order for the police to ask people whether they were wearing their belts? What sort of public reaction does my hon. Friend think that would produce? Perhaps he would care to look at this problem.

Mr. Winterton: It is not for me to look at the problem. It is the sponsor of the Bill who should look at it, together with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the implementation of any legislation, no doubt in liaison with the police.
It is vital that statistics about the number of people taken to court and convicted for not wearing their seat belts, if this legislation gets on the statute book, should appear in a report placed before this House on an annual basis, together with the number of people found without seat belts who were taken to court and not convicted, with details of the grounds for their not being convicted. All these statistics should be presented to the House so that, in the first instance, at the end of the first year of putting this legislation on the statute book, the information may be available to hon. Members and,

through this House, to people outside. It is the people outside not just right hon. and hon. Members, who wil be affected by the legislation that we are debating.
2 pm
It is important to know what is the most effective seat belt. If this legislation gets on to the statute book, people will inevitably want to buy the most effective seat belts. It is important that a report should come to this House at an early date no matter upon how little information it is based. In this context a little information is better than no information, and such a report would help people decide what kind of seat belts to fit to an old car that they do not intend to replace.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the report that he calls for should contain a section dealing specifically with the exceptions granted by the Minister? The aspect of the Bill that worries me is the power given to the Minister to make exceptions. I would have thought that exceptions, as a matter of constitutional propriety, would be much better debated here than included in the Bill. The operation of the Act will create a variety of exceptions as people submit strong cases for exemption. I would have thought that that aspect should be dealt with in the report.

Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. He has been present during most of the debate but has had to leave the Chamber on one or two occasions to attend to other important matters. It might well have been during one of those absences that he missed an intervention that I made earlier on the non-specific nature of exemptions and exceptions.
My hon. Friend says that it is a bad Bill, and I entirely agree with him. It is an excessively bad Bill, and I shall do everything in my power to ensure that it does not reach the statute book. My hon. Friend raised an important issue, but I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would rule me out of order if I discussed the exceptions, because you would rightly point out that if my hon. Friend looked at the Amendment Paper he would see that there will be opportunities later in the debate for hon. Members to raise the issue of exemptions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough referred to a survey that indicated that 59 per cent. of those questioned said that they were against this legislation. Further research done by my hon. Friend in his own area of Yorkshire and the North of England showed that driving instructors were overwhelmingly against this legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This cannot be relevant to the question whether a report should be made or not. I have allowed the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) considerable latitude, but he is going into great detail on issues that are not relevant to this particular amendment.

Mr. Winterton: I apologise once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was led marginally astray by my hon. Friend, the Member for Woolwich, West. I conclude my remarks—

Mr. Frank Dobson: Inertia reels.

Mr. Winterton: If the hon. Member would like me to discuss inertia reels, I shall be happy to do so, but I am not sure how much latitude you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I may relate the remarks that you considered to be out of order very much to the new clause that we are debating, I believe that the objections that the police are receiving to the legislation—should it reach the statute book—might also very usefully be recorded in the report that is part of the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has said something that I was ruling out of order. It would be in order for the hon. Gentleman to speak of objections made after the legislation had been passed, but not before. It cannot be relevant to the time.

Mr. Winterton: That is exactly what I said. Objections to the legislation, once it has reached the statute book, could be reported in the annual report by the Minister to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member and I might be misunderstanding each other. I was referring to the hon. Gentleman's reference to driving instructors giving a present opinion. That

cannot be relevant to a new clause proposing that a report be made after the act is in force.

Mr. Winterton: We are now on the same frequency, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was referring to remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, who made his speech when your colleague was in the chair. My hon. Friend was not pulled up by the Chair. Driving instructors and those who teach people to drive might feel that their ability to act in a crisis is adversely affected by the wearing of a seat belt. That information could be included in the Minister's report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough presented an excellent case. I am delighted that the Government and the Bill's sponsor have accepted it. I have only one reservation. I shall wait until the end of the debate before deciding which way to vote. My hon. Friend might have served the House better if his new clause had provided that the Minister should, within one year of the Act being passed, present a report to Parliament on the operation of the Act. With that reservation, I welcome the clause.

Mr. George Robertson: This has been a sad debate. The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) moved a reasoned new clause. Within five minutes he was told by the sponsor of the Bill that he would accept the provision. The sponsor accepted that a report should be made. However, the hon. Member continued with his speech and was followed by other hon. Members who went on at inordinate length about the ins and outs of reports, here, there and everywhere.
One would be forgiven for thinking that we are discussing a minute and technical statutory instrument of no consequence. In reality we are discussing a matter of enormous consequence which many experts believe could save thousands of lives—yet hon. Members treat the matter frivolously. That is a scandal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order I have allowed the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) to get off his chest what he had in mind. He must now discuss the amendment.

Mr. Robertson: The new clause provides that a report be published. Few people believe that a report of that nature could include anything but the most devastating evidence that the compulsory use of seat belts is desirable and necessary. The idaa of such a report is acceptable to the sponsors. It is tragic that the House insists upon discussing the minute details of such a report. We are being diverted from the basis of the legislation. A decision should be made in the Lobbies instead of talking out the Bill. The evidence is overwhelming and it would be included in any report that was published after the Bill had been enacted. It would confirm the view already expressed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Royal College of Surgeons and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already had cause to call the hon. Gentleman to order. We are discussing what will be in the report if the Bill is enacted. We are not discussing what people are saying now.

Mr. Robertson: I appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker that the even-handedness that you have shown should apply equally to me. The point of view expressed has been accepted. We should now enshrine that point of view in the Bill. We should go on to discuss the important issues. We must come to a decision about this vital piece of legislation.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I intervene briefly to say that the Second Reading of the new clause has been eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller). I do not disagree with the opinion that has been expressed by the sponsor of the Bill. However, in accepting the new clause, the sponsor was understandably moved by the remarks of my hon. Friend and by considerations of time. There was an understandable desire to get on with the discussion.
The Bill has evolved over a number of years as a result of similar parliamentary proceedings. Sponsors have tended to accept amendments or to frame the Bill in such a way as to reduce the amount of debate possible. I hope that no one thinks that that process produces an ideal form of legislation. Those of my hon.

Friends who have spoken at length may change their minds. If a clear majority were in favour of the Bill, a better form could be drafted. Most of us feel that the wide regulation-making powers in the Bill are unsatisfactory. A better piece of legislation would contain more specific exemptions that could be criticised individually by hon. Members. The type of debate that we have had over the years has driven sponsors to go for this form of Bill. However, I hope it will not be taken as an ideal precedent for drafting.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Is there not a principle involved? Friday after Friday is wasted on such Bills as the seat belts Bill and the abortion Bill. They hold up other Bills upstairs, simply as a result of the procedure that my hon. Friend has mentioned,

Mr. Clarke: I sponsored a Bill that suffered a similar fate. Any Private Member's Bill that is passionately opposed by more than 12 hon. Members has no prospect of being enacted. It holds up other legislation. It is probably right that that should be so.
Although the new clause has been accepted, on another occasion I might have cast doubt on the wisdom of putting a statutory obligation on the Government to keep producing an annual report to the House. It would become an onerous obligation upon the Ministry. It would also waste the manpower needed to produce it. After a while we would have enough experience and the report would not be necessary. I therefore hope that any future draftsmen of a Bill on this subject will not think that an ideal seat belt Bill should contain such clauses. Quite rightly—from the point of view of the sponsors—tactical considerations have prevailed today. However, if one were starting again, one would need to look afresh at the question of whether the House needs a statutory report about road traffic legislation.

Mr. Body: I am grateful to you for having called me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been seeking to catch your eye since 9.30 a.m. However, as a result of the many weighty arguments that have been deployed, it has been difficult for anyone to speak.

Mr. Moate: Surely my hon. Friend should blame not the general interest in the debate but the fact that a number of hon. Members who support his point of view, including one of my hon. Friends who spoke for 77 minutes, have blatantly filibustered on the Bill. Surely that is what has wasted the time.

Mr. Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take that statement by my hon. Friend to be a rather serious aspersion on those of us who have been motivated only by the public good and the desire to make sure that matters that were not fully debated on Second Reading or in Committee are properly aired and ventilated today.
Accusing an hon. Gentleman, let alone an hon. Friend, of a filibuster in such circumstances is not only outrageous, but casts aspersion on the Chair. I am sure that if there had been a filibuster, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would have been the first to stop it. May I ask for your protection and suggest that you should invite my hon. Friend to withdraw his outrageous and offensive suggestion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Such suggestions are often made in the House. Sometimes there is truth in them and sometimes there is not. It is something that hon. Members have to get used to, and I do not believe that there is anything of which the Chair should take note.

Mr. Body: I hate to see two of my favourite hon. Friends falling out. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) give the impression that we ought not to discuss these matters in detail, but should go into the Lobby with great speed, because that is what the public expects of us. The hon. Gentleman may take a different view if he has strong feelings against a future Bill.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the hon. Gentle-aware that the deputy leader of my party, God bless him, and I did exactly what is being done today when the House considered the House of Lords reform Bill. We are accompanied—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is well outside the discussion of the new clause.

Mr. Body: I oppose the new clause, even though it was moved cogently and persuasively by my hon. Friend the member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller), and I shall seek to divide the House on it.
As this is my first contribution in any debate on the Bill, I should say that I have a warm personal regard for the promoter and regret having to take precisely the opposite view about the measure.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I always wear a seat belt and I do my best to persuade my passengers to wear one. It is only sensible to do so, but I resile from the compulsory element. As legislators, we should hold fast to the view of John Stuart Mill that when we are creating a crime it should be an act against someone else and not against ourselves.
Those of us who have practised at the criminal Bar over the years—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman always tries to keep in order, but his remarks cannot possibly relate to the new clause. Even his feeling about the legislation have nothing to do with the new clause.

Mr. Body: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I turn at once to my objections to the new clause. First, I think that it will be unnecessary. Obviously we shall need a great deal more information about how the Bill is to work if it gets on to the statute book.
I have great faith in my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I write him letters almost every day. I always get a charming letter back. We have had a long line of excellent Parliamentary Secretaries. The only trouble is that they all get bitten by this compulsory seat belts Bill. Apart from that, the occupants of that office have looked after the interests of my constituents very well. I am grateful for all they done over the years. I am willing to trust that the House and the nation will be given the information that is needed. It is known perfectly well that the public will not accept this legislation or abide by it unless they feel it is necessary.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I agree with the hon. Gentleman 100 per cent. about the


Parliamentary Secretary. Is he not aware, however, that we have civil servants who like to cover up their misdeeds and mistakes? If this were voluntary, does he think that it would come out? The matter of the Crown Agents came out only by accident.

Mr. Body: I am not disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman. If officials can produce reports that are meaningless, leaving out parts that would be unfavourable to their arguments, I do not believe that the compulsory element imposed on the Minister will be a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter. In the same way as I believe in the voluntary use of seat belts, I believe that the Minister would voluntarily submit to Parliament, or report to the public, the evidence and information that should be available. It is not sensible to require the Minister or, if the point of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) is valid, his officials to produce this information.
I am concerned about the cost. This is especially relevant if hon. Members are to insist on an annual report. There will be, perhaps, hundreds of these reports. This, of course, will not happen, because the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will be repealed. Until it is repealed these reports will be churned out year after year, and, I suspect, become more meaningless and more a waste of public money.
I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary is studying ways to save public money in the Ministry of Transport. My fear is that money that could have been spent on two bypass schemes in my constituency could be lost. This applies throughout the country. I do not wish to see public money wasted. I fear that this proposal will mean incurring unnecessary public expenditure.
It needs to be repeated that a budget of £9,000 million works out at £200 per man, woman and child. That is an enormous deficit. By taking this step we are adding to public expenditure unnecessarily. The cost of publishing all the documents issued by the Ministry of Transport is considerable. It is not only the printing. That is only a small item. It is the amount of research that has to go into these reports and documents. The cost of those published in the course of a year must be considerable.

Mr. Moate: If my hon. Friend is so concerned about public expenditure and, indeed, more concerned about that expenditure than, perhaps, the saving of life and the avoidance of injury, would he like to put in the balance the enormous saving in public expenditure, in terms of saving life, hospital resources and the immense cost of the National Health Service to the taxpayer that would result from the passing of the Bill? That far outweighs the trivial point that he makes.

Mr. Body: I accept that entirely, but it will prove a waste of money to have the information regurgitated year after year by the Minister simply because the House wants annual reports. We could trust the Minister of the day to publish reports from time to time and that would be administratively a more sensible way of proceeding. I accept that seat belts save lives. I believe in wearing a seat belt. I always do so.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: As good as the Parliamentary Secretary may be, and as much as the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) may love him, he will not be in his present post for all time. Another Minister will supersede him. We cannot trust all Ministers. They even avoid answering questions if they can get away with it.

Mr. Body: I understand that, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that I am doling out the syrup in the Parliamentary Secretary's direction this afternoon because I want to press ahead with urgent decisions about two bypasses, one for Long Sutton and the other for Spalding.

Mr. Jessel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for my hon. Friend to raise the question of these bypasses?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I was considering the next business. Bypasses do not come within the terms of the new clause.

Mr. Body: They are important bypasses and I do not want them to be delayed.

Mr. Grieve: I share entirely my hon. Friend's views about the expediency and desirability of wearing seat belts. That issue does not arise under this Bill. Will


my hon. Friend bear in mind that in this regard society does not make suicide a criminal offence, although once it did.

Mr. Body: I am disappointed in my hon. and learned Friend, because he was for many years—we remember him fondly for this—deputy chairman of Holland quarter sessions. In his capacity on the Bench he was concerned with numerous prosecutions for dangerous driving in the county. I thought that he would endorse the importance of having the two bypasses because of the numerous cases of bad driving that arose.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Perhaps my hon. Friend will encourage the Department of Transport to look with particular favour on the Long Sutton bypass by giving an indication of the likely incidence of seat belt wearing that his constituents might indulge in while using that road.

Mr. Body: My hon. Friend has received photographs from me of shop property and houses that have been demolished by lorries that have collided with them. Those incidents would never have happened if the bypass had been built.
The clause is unnecessary. We have an open system of Government. Ministers are, as a whole, much more open-minded in giving information—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: No.

Mr. Body: I do not accept everything said by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West on this issue. Ministries are more forthcoming now than they were 35 years ago when he first came to the House. In those days very few questions were tabled for written answer, and the questions were not answered in the way that they are now.

Mr. Lewis: There was much more openness then, because there were more oral questions. Ministers answered questions, which they do not do today.

Mr. Body: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary always answers questions very well. I repeat that there is far more open government now on many matters. There is far more access to information. If one goes into the Library one sees quantities of reports, documents and the rest issued out of Whitehall on

a scale never experienced 20 or 30 years ago—

It being half-past two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday 7 March.

IMPORT OF LIVE FISH (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

RETIREMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Greville Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the way in which this morning's debate has gone and the way in which the Bill dealing with the import of live fish has been dealt with, and since there are millions of people who depend upon this Retirement Bill, is it in order for hon. Members to object as they have done?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that it is in order for hon. Members to object.

Mr. Janner: Disgraceful.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 July.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Friday 14 March.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have the authority of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill?

Mr. Lewis: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Very well. No day named.

EMPLOYMENT (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 February.

OPTICAL CHARGES (EXEMPTION) SCOTLAND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 February.

HEARING AID COUNCIL ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 July.

DOGS (CONTROL) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading, what day? No day named.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 February.

HYPNOTISM BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 February.

SAFETY OF CHILDREN IN CARS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 29 February.

INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put, forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

MOTOR CYCLES (SAFETY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr. Berry.)

Mr. Gary Waller: I am delighted to have secured at very short notice, this opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the important matter of motor cycle safety. When I entered the Chamber this morning I had no idea that I would be standing here at this time speaking in the Adjournment debate. Nevertheless, I am delighted that through the withdrawal of another debate, it has been possible for me to raise the matter. I believe that it is vital to so many people, particularly young people. It also provides me with an opportunity to show that whatever we may have believed and still believe about the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill that we were discussing just before the red herring—if I may so describe the Bill related to fishing, with which we dealt so quickly—we are concerned for the safety of the individual.
Motor cycles have become increasingly popular during recent years. That is largely a reflection of the road conditions


today. Motor cycles are able to move more quickly through congested traffic, they use less fuel than cars, and they enable a great deal of time to be saved. They also provide many people, including the Government Chief Whip, with a great deal of pleasure, even though some people prefer to gain that pleasure during the summer months when the weather is good.
During the last year or two the rise in fuel prices has increased the trend towards these two-wheel vehicles. Between 1972 and 1978 the number of motor cycles in use rose from 1 million to 1·2 million. In terms of distance travelled, the increase is even greater.
Motor cycle riders are predominantly young people. A high proportion are under 21, and a high proportion of those injured in accidents are also under that age. Regrettably, the injuries have risen seriously and tragically. In 1972 there were 42,600 casualties from accidents involving motor cycles. By 1978 the figure had risen to 70,000. Of those over 1,100 were killed and 20,000 seriously injured.
It is slightly comforting—if one can so describe it—that in relation to the number of motor cycles and the number of miles travelled, the accident rate has fallen. However, we must take into account that a motor cycle rider is 30 times more likely to be fatally or seriously injured than a car driver. Thus, while the increase in accidents is a reflection of the increased popularity of motor cycles, it should give us no cause for complacency. We should be all the more concerned because there are so many more people now at risk. Almost 20 per cent. of casualties occur as a result of accidents involving motor cycles.
The Government are right to look at all issues in relation to the cost that they impose on the community. The Department of Transport has worked out that the cost, in direct terms, of those accidents is around £205 million—a considerable amount.

Mr. Donald Thompson: My hon. Friend did not mention how many accidents involved pillion passengers, and how many involved people who were not old enough to ride a motor cycle. Sometimes young girls are involved. Does he not realise the terror that he is spreading

amongst the families of those people who own motor bikes? They are frightened.
My hon. Friend knows, as I know, that in our constituencies motor cycles are more popular than pedal cycles, because it is very difficult to ride a pedal cycle round West Yorkshire. Therefore, many young people need motor cycles to get about and to get to work.

Mr. Waller: My hon. Friend has made an important point. I cannot give him the statistics for which he asks, but it may be possible to obtain them for him later.
My hon. Friend also made an important point about motor cycles and pedal cycles. In London traffic I feel safer on a two-wheeled vehicle equipped with an engine than on a pedal cycle. I have had the experience of finding myself totally immobilised in the middle of Parliament Square when with a little motor power I could have extracted myself.
Some work has been done on the training of motor cyclists. The report of the advisory committee on motor cycle rider training, produced for the Ministry of Transport last October, pointed to the excellent schemes that exist. The RAC runs an excellent scheme, to which the Government in 1978–79 gave £57,000. It is good that the Ministry supports the scheme in that way, but, in relation to the cost to the community of the accidents and the tragic cutting off of young lives, it is an amount that the Ministry might consider increasing.
The schools traffic education programme, which is operated in co-operation with local authorities, is also a good scheme. When the report was produced 429 courses were operating.
It is difficult to show the positive benefits of such schemes. Some research statistics have shown that motor cycle training produces a positive change in performance, notably among 17-yearolds, and an improvement in machine control. But we are talking about a relatively small sample, and it is difficult to provide proof. I hope that more research will be done and that it will be possible to obtain more information. Most people certainly believe that the benefits of training outweigh the costs.


That is a particularly good reason for wishing to spend more money on motor cycle training.
There are weaknesses in the present system. One of the greatest is that a person can obtain a licence, put an L-plate on a machine and drive it out of the shop, even though it is capable of reaching 100 mph. That is what a 250cc motorcycle is capable of doing these days. There was a time when a 250cc machine was capable only of much lower speeds, but such has been the research and development during the past few years that a 250cc motorcycle is now capable of going very quickly.
There is no need for a rider to take a test for as long as he or she wishes not to do so. There is no inducement to take a test, except perhaps that one can carry a pillion passenger when one has passed. Therefore, we should consider what incentives we can give young people to obtain training and pass their test early.
We might consider making the test considerably tougher. Some people think that all they need do is to ride round the block being observed by the examiner in order to pass the test. If the test were made tougher, more people might feel it necessary to obtain training. The advisory committee examined this matter.
There is a great deal to be said for the committee's suggestion that training centres in the private sector—for example, of the kind run by the RAC—should be approved to run the first part of the test and that there should be a second part carried out at one of the Ministry's own centres. That would be one way of reducing expenditure and making the test tougher at the same time. The advisory committee did not propose that training should be compulsory, although it is something we must now move towards, because apparently so few people are willing to take training courses. Only about 15 per cent. of motor cycle riders have any kind of training, compared with 90 per cent. who take professional tuition when they put L-plates on a car.
One of the proposals made was that L-drivers should not be allowed to ride motorcycles with a brake horsepower exceeding 12. That is a useful proposal. If we continue to define capacity in terms

of cubic capacity motorcycles will become increasingly powerful, at whatever level we set the capacity.
It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) initiated a similar Adjournment debate in the autumn of last year. At that time he did not come down in favour of compulsory training, but he has now decided that we must move in that direction.
It is difficult to see how to improve things without incurring additional cost. One suggestion is that a levy should be imposed on the sale of every machine. There might be problems there, but this matter is so important that it is something that should be considered.
This very day, by some strange coincidence, I received from The Institute of Motor Cycling a copy of the submission to the Minister of Transport by the Motor Cycle Association of Great Britain Limited, in which some useful suggestions are made. That submission proposes that there should be a greater variety of categories of machine, such as a cycle motor with a maximum capacity of 15cc and a single speed. The moped will stay the same. A third proposal is that there should be a lighweight motor cycle or scooter with a limited performance not exceeding 15 brake horsepower. So that Association sets the brake horsepower slightly higher than the advisory committee. It is further proposed in that submission that there should be a middleweight motor cycle, not exceeding 30 brake horsepower.
The different types of machine having been defined, a rather complex scheme is then set out whereby a person will be able to ride larger bikes, whether having taken a test or not, at different ages—16, 17 or 18. This is something that we should look at, but there are complications. We would need to ensure that the legislation was relatively simple, because people of that age may find it difficult to understand. There might be problems between the police and young motor cyclists if we introduced such a complicated scheme.
I have not had time to deal with motor cycle helmets, but they are vitally important. One hears so much about young people putting transfers on their helmets which damage their effectiveness. That


is something that cannot be too strongly emphasised.
I welcome the opportunity that I have had thrust upon me to open this short debate. Speaking as one who enjoys motor cycling, I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's reply.

Mr. Albert Booth: I declare an interest in that I have two sons who ride motor cycles and I have ridden solo and combination motor cycles over many thousands of miles of United Kingdom roads.
This debate is timely. There is continuing concern about the serious numbers of young people who are injured through riding motor cycles. There is a need for an increase in training facilities. The more traffic there is on city roads the less suitable they are for young people to ride powerful motor bikes on.
There is an unanswerable case for saying that any youngster who is prepared to go into a proper training centre to learn to ride should do so. There is much less likelihood of his being killed or seriously injured during his first few miles of motor cycle riding if he can do it at a training centre with the proper facilities.
I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on having examined this problem. I am optimistic that he will be able to forward the aim while in his present post.
I put to the hon. Gentleman only two further considerations. The present licensing system does not provide sufficient incentive to young people to take a test. The time when motor cyclists took a pride in throwing away their L-plates has long passed. Having talked to many young people, I find that today they do not care if they go on riding for years renewing their provisional licences, with a cheap celluloid L-plate lashed on their telescopic forks or somewhere else. There is a need to provide a real incentive.
I think that this can be best done in two ways. The first is to enable those who go into good training facilities to have the opportunity to obtain a full licence more cheaply. The second is to impose a condition on continuing to ride under a provisional licence that beyond a certain date people would be obliged to take a test within a certain time, or to undertake a properly recognised training

course. Both of these things could contribute in some way to reducing the number of injuries, reducing much worry for many parents and making our roads somewhat safer.
I throw in the afterthought that motor cyclists are more vulnerable to badly maintained roads than are car drivers. If a youngster within his first few months of handling a machine hits a pothole with his front wheel, he is likely to come off his machine, whereas comparable dangers do not face the driver of a car, who will be under supervision anyway whilst learning to drive. The youngster riding a motor bike is not under supervision.
I realise that it is not possible to repair all of our roads within the next few months. However, I urge that we have good warning signs to warn motor cyclists against riding unawares into conditions which could be fatal to them.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) on raising this subject at present. I entirely agree with him and with the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) that there is widespread public interest and concern at present. It is not surprising when one reflects upon the figures that my hon. Friend has just given to the House. The present casualty levels are far too high. I think that people are looking to us to take some steps in the fairly near future to try to reduce them.
My hon. Friend is quite right when he says that in recent years the main change in road safety legislation affecting motor cyclist has been the compulsory wearing of helmets. There is some feeling against that measure. Although the overwhelming majority of motor cyclists accept that they ought to wear a helmet, some people feel so strongly that they continue to complain about the legislation of a few years ago. I have to make it clear that at present the figures for motor cycle accidents are so bad, and the position is so serious, that there is no question whatever of the Government's contemplating a repeal of the motor cycle helmet law.
We are now hoping to take matters further. We waited until October of


this year for the report of the advisory committee on montor cycle training, which the previous Government set up. It produced a very valuable report. Since then I have been having discussions with a wide range of interested groups on the question of motor cycle training, and have been widening the discussion beyond training to motor cycle satety as a whole. The groups, of course, are the main interested bodies—those interested in motor cycles, road traffic affairs and road safety. But I have also tried to bring in some representatives from the general public, in so far as one can do so in these matters, because lobbies can sometimes give one an unbalanced impression of public opinion, and representatives of women's institutes and parent-teacher associations have been rather a valuable source of information, reflecting, I think, the sort of views that one would expect from bodies of that kind—great concern that something should be done to improve on motor cycle safety.
We have tried to widen the discussions beyond training because, first, there is almost universal acceptance of the need for more training—the need, one way or another, to get more people to undergo training, particularly when they first acquire a machine, as my hon. Friend has said, and in the first months thereafter. It is the inexperienced motor cyclist who is most at risk and it is there that the accident figures are worst.
I have no real reservations, because I agree entirely that the present situation is wrong, and that STEP, the RAC and local authorities that are providing training are doing a very valuable job. I occasionally wonder whether too much weight is put upon training. We should accept that training is important, and we should look at ways in which we can encourage people to go in for more of it, or even make them do so; but I do not think that training is the sole answer. It will produce an improvement, but we have to look at other aspects of motor cycle safety as well.
As an interim stage—discussions have still to be held with many other interested bodies—the Government have not closed their minds against compulsory training of some sort. Perhaps it could be applied when a vehicle is first acquired by a

novice, who can receive some training to roadworthiness before he goes on the road. There is widespread support—somewhat to my surprise—for an element of compulsory training. On the other hand, there are difficulties. Obviously, we would need to be satisfied that the various bodies, most of which are voluntary—STEP is financed by the motor cycle industry itself—can provide a nationwide service of training that would meet everybody's requirements. In any element of compulsion, the Government have to take an interest in uniformity of standards of training provided. Methods should be allowed to vary. Voluntary bodies and private organisations should be allowed to choose the methods that they prefer. However, there must be monitoring of standards if we are trying to introduce a national system.
We shall look at ways of extending training and getting more people to go in for training. We are considering a suggestion that training might be linked with the test. Many criticisms have been made about the adequacy of the Ministry of Transport test. It tends to be disparaged by people who do not thoroughly understand how it is carried out. Nevertheless, we would wish to have the highest possible standard of test. Almost half of those who take it fail it, and it certainly fulfils a purpose. The failure rate reflects a great deal on the standards of driving of those who feel that they are ready to drive. We shall investigate the possibility of improving the standards of the test, but we cannot contemplate that, with the resources that might be involved, until we have dealt with the immediate problem of the test—getting down the waiting list so that those who need to take it can do so.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness that we must find a way to encourage more people to take the test. We must give them a positive form of incentive or inducement to take the test and hope that they will take training to get through the test. About 90 per cent. of car drivers pay for professional driving instruction to drive their car before taking a test. They pay out a lot of money and they do not do that for the love of driving schools. They do so because they have a distinct desire to get rid of the accompanying driver and


the L plates, and to get through the test as quickly as possible. They are convinced that the test is of such a standard that they need to be trained by a professional to take it. About 15 per cent. of motor cyclists take training. Some motor cyclists do not bother to take a test, because they feel that it is not worth paying the fee. We must look at what can be done to alter that.
We are investigating the ability of people to have endless provisional licences for motor cycles with no limit on holding them without taking a test or training. There is much support for setting a limit on the duration of a provisional licence without test or training. We are looking at the size of machine that can be driven by a provisional licence holder. There is almost universal acceptance—my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough agreed with this—that vehicles of 250 cc are too big and the 12bhp limit that has been advocated by the advisory committee has wide acceptance. The Motor Cycle Association has sent in its submission and I have considered that and discussed it with care with the association. I pay tribute to the manufacturers and traders for their genuine interest in safety. Obviously, they have a perfectly legitimate interest—anything that improves the safety of motor cycles or reduces the fears of parents makes more people happy to contemplate buying them. There is genuine public interest as well in its approach and it finances the major training organisation, STEP. I was interested in the reactions of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough to this survey and the complexity of the rules about moving up to different sizes of machine at different ages. I believe that such rules are unattractive.

Mr. Iain Mills: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the RAC/ ACU volunteers who work through the county council road safety committees are doing a good job?

Mr. Clarke: I have visited both organisations, and I was impressed. Every person is a volunteer doing the work because he believes that it is a valuable public service to get down the amount of deaths and injuries among young people on the road.
When I mention the deaths of and injuries to young people on our roads, the subject ties in with the suggestion that we are considering from the MCA that 15-year-olds might be introduced to powered two-wheel vehicles by being allowed to ride very low-powered motor cycles on the road. There is some support for that. Senior police officers have supported it because they see the case for getting people familiarised with low-powered vehicles before they move on to more powerful machines. But there are serious reservations as well.
At the moment, the figures for 16year-olds on low-powered mopeds are particularly bad. About one in four on mopeds will have an injury or accident during that year. If we were to take any step which produced a dramatic increase in the number of 15-year-old casualties on another new form of low-powered vehicle, I think that the public would be extremely critical.
We are looking also at motor cycle design. I have learnt a lot from my discussions so far—and I emphasise again that I have not closed my mind to any suggestion yet, because I await the remainder of my discussions—about the limited performance of some motor cycle brakes in wet weather, for example, where there are distinct problems with exposed disc brakes. We must look at the regulations on brake performance and consider various innovations such as sintered brake pads, and so on, with a view to seeing what can be done to encourage the wider use of brakes of a form which will produce better performance.

Mr. Waller: The Transport and Road Research Laboratory produced a rather interesting machine, which had a device for preventing a motor cyclist being thrown forward over the handlebars. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen it. Is this a possibility, or is the complexity of such a machine such as to make it impractical?

Mr. Clarke: I have not yet seen it, but that is my fault and no one else's. I keep having to put off my visit because of the pressure of parliamentary business. But I have heard of it. It is described at the TRRL as the "superbike". Amongst other devices there is a fitting in front of the chest of the motorcyclist. There are a number of other devices as well.


We are interested in that. We are interested in research on that sort of idea, but again my initial reaction is that we are a long way from its widespread introduction. They are rather involved and complicated safely devices. However, in future years I think that there will be some dramatic changes in the design of motorcycles and safety fittings which will make riders a little less exposed than inevitably they are at present on any sort of motor cycle.
Conspicuity is very important. It is accepted that a great many motor cycle accidents are caused because the drivers of other vehicles—admittedly themselves making errors and driving carelessly—fail to notice the motor cyclists, who are small and inconspicuous road users. There is far more chance of driving out of a side road into the path of a motor cycle than into the path of a pantechnicon lorry, which is a rather obvious on-coming vehicle. Motor cyclists could help themselves by wearing "dayglo" jackets and contemplating other measures, including bright clothing, the possible use of dipped headlights in daytime, and so on, all of which improve the conspicuity of motorcyclists. Again, we are having discussions about it, and I am not sure that we have yet reached the stage where there is general agreement that there is a case for compulsion on the issue of conspicuity, although a great deal of useful advice

could be given to inexperienced motorcyclists to think about how they can make themselves more conspicuous on the roads.
I do not think that I can take the matter much further today. We are still in the middle of discussions, which I hope to finish in a few weeks. But the Government realise the importance and urgency of bringing these discussions to an end and putting forward some conclusions as the basis for possible action. We do not want to carry on debating the subject. The debates and discussions have to be assisting us towards coming to the earliest possible widely acceptable conclusions. I hope to be able to give my conclusions to the House in the not too distant future.
Meanwhile, the casualty figures go on rising. They must be extremely worrying to anyone concerned about road safety. The largest single cause of death among teenagers—both boys and girls—involves motorcycle accidents. One could produce many other appalling figures, and I share my hon. Friend's concern that we should get on to doing something about it and get the figures down to a more tolerable level.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Three o'clock.